Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SECURITY

The Secretary of State was asked—

Stakeholder Pensions

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: What criteria he plans to issue to investment managers on investment policy for stakeholder pensions. [93744]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): As with existing pension arrangements, the overall investment policy for stakeholder pensions will be a matter for those running the schemes. We propose that schemes should prepare a statement of investment principles, including social, environmental and ethical considerations, but policy action will be up to those running the schemes.

Mrs. Lait: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he assure me that all pension trustees will have the absolute right to manage pension funds to achieve the best possible return for their pensioners, and that the pensions will not be affected by considerations other than the right of best return?

Mr. Rooker: Yes, I can give the hon. Lady that assurance.

Mr. Michael Trend: I welcome the Minister to his first Question Time in his current capacity. On appointment, he was the fourth pensions Minister in 27 months, so I wish him luck.
I understand that the Minister may be reluctant to adopt a position that is being urged on him by the Opposition, but has he decided whether pensioners, and stakeholder pensioners in particular, should be obliged to take their pension in the form of annuity at the age of 75, or whether he intends to sweep away that rule for stakeholder and other appropriate pensions?

Mr. Rooker: Neither I nor any of my colleagues in government have taken the approach of simply sweeping away ideas and suggestions from the Opposition. There is plenty evidence of that in legislation that has gone through the House. The hon. Gentleman will understand that,

given the changes made in the other place to a Bill that has not yet completed its passage through the other place, I cannot answer his question in detail.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I take it from my hon. Friend's reply that he is quite happy for pension funds to invest in tobacco companies?

Mr. Rooker: It is for those who manage the funds and the trustees in charge of the funds to make such decisions. They are the ones who are accountable, not Ministers.

Mr. John Wilkinson: What provision will the Government make to ensure that adequate advice is available to those who take out stakeholder pensions? According to the Financial Times, no less than half the population of the United Kingdom have total savings of less than £750. Is that not a disturbing comment on the lack of real disposable income, and does that not make it all the more important that the investment choices to be made through a stakeholder pension are properly made?

Mr. Rooker: I saw the report in the Financial Times, although I have not seen the document to which it refers. I got the impression under the previous Government that everyone was awash with funds. The vast majority of those at whom stakeholder pensions are targeted—people on moderate earnings, say between £10,000 and £20,000 a year—have no second pension provision. We estimate that their total earnings amount to £60 billion a year, and we believe that allowances and second pension provision can be made from that.

Appeals

Mr. Anthony D. Wright: What steps his Department is taking to improve social security appeals procedures. [93745]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): As part of our plans for modernising the social security system, we are bringing in important changes to procedures for making decisions on social security claims and child support assessments and for handling appeals. The changes will be completed by November this year.

Mr. Wright: I thank my hon. Friend for her response. I welcome the setting up of a new appeals procedure, which we hope will prevent unacceptably long delays in making decisions. One of my constituents, who suffered from myalgic encephalomyelitis, had to endure 18 months before his appeal was won. Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that all the old appeals will be tackled in the near future?

Angela Eagle: I understand my hon. Friend's frustration with the system that we inherited, where the average wait for an appeal decision was seven months. Clearly, if the average waiting time is seven months, some cases will go on for much longer. The backlog of old appeals, which in February stood at 70,348 cases, which was 50 per cent. of all outstanding appeals, was down to 15,405 in September, as a result of the changes that we have made in decision making and appeals. That is a


substantial improvement, and I take this opportunity of complimenting the staff of the tribunal service, who have done so well to produce that result.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Does the Minister accept that the appeals procedure was reviewed only because of pressure exerted by the Opposition? Will the hon. Lady, on behalf of the Government, undertake to go back on the means-testing provision that is written into the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, to avoid a burdensome appeals procedure when that comes into force?

Angela Eagle: I have never heard such nonsense in my life; I am afraid that the hon. Lady is living in fantasy land. It is quite clear that streamlining, which maintains people's proper rights, had to be introduced for the cumbersome appeals procedure that we inherited, and that is what we have done.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Although everyone welcomes the clear acceleration in the hearing of such appeals, will my hon. Friend bear it in mind that there is some doubt about the quality of some of the evidence that is being given to tribunals? Many of the most vulnerable people in our society are losing their benefits and having to appeal. The length of time in which an appeal is heard is essential. I know that she understands that, but will she keep a close eye on the situation?

Angela Eagle: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend and also, I hope, can reassure her that one of the main principles behind the changes to appeals procedures is avoiding the need for appeals altogether. In other words, we want to collect the evidence properly and ensure that benefit is awarded correctly first time so that we can take a lot of appeals, which are caused by mistakes and confusion, out of the system completely.

Pensioners

Mr. Oliver Letwin: What steps he is taking to ensure that all pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. [93747]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): Research on barriers that pensioners face in claiming income support was published as recently as 15 October. Later this year, we will publish the evaluation of our pilots, which are aimed at encouraging pensioners to claim. That work is the most comprehensive analysis of pensioner take-up—or non-take-up, as the case may be—so far.

Mr. Letwin: I am grateful to the Minister for that deeply illuminating reply. What explanation can he give pensioners who are claiming benefits today of the fact that their basic state pension is worth only a fraction of what it would have been worth had it been placed in a fund when they were making their national insurance contributions?

Mr. Rooker: The hon. Gentleman asked me about ensuring that pensioners receive the benefits to which they are entitled. It is a deep cause of concern that some pensioners are not receiving the benefits to which they are

entitled because of the barriers to claiming. Some of them believe that they still have to go to the social—to the office—to claim, for instance, income support or the minimum income guarantee. That is not the case. Claims can be made through a home visit or, in some parts of the country, over the telephone.
The hon. Gentleman has asked about the important issue of take-up of benefits before. An estimated 800,000 pensioners are not receiving the benefit to which they are entitled and for which the House has legislated, and we want to do everything we can to encourage take-up. There will be a Government-sponsored take-up campaign next spring.

Mr. Frank Field: I also congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post. Can he confirm that, generally speaking, the poorest pensioners are the oldest pensioners and that the national insurance fund is, to use a phrase he used a moment ago, awash with funds? Can he also confirm that the Government have records of pensioners aged over 80, because we pay them a few extra pennies a week, and that perhaps the most effective way of tackling pensioner poverty would be to give an increase of about £15 to those pensioners?

Mr. Rooker: I thank my right hon. Friend—and, indeed, the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend)—for their welcome. My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Indeed, of the estimated average number of pensioners not taking up their entitlement to income support—which varies between 530,000 to 870,000; one cannot be precise—230,000 are single females aged over 80, so there is a major problem. The figure for single males aged over 80 is 40,000.
When I walked into the Department of Social Security, I thought that, by twiddling the keys on my keyboard, I would be able to bring up the information necessary for finding those people in a detailed and systematic way, but the way that the information technology arrangements in the Department have been made in recent years prevented that from happening, which is why we need a Government-led take-up campaign.
On my right hon. Friend's further point, he will know better than I do that we cannot make a decision that could have consequences for 10, 20 or 30 years on one year's figures for the national insurance fund.

Fraud

Mr. Peter Lilley: What steps he has taken to involve the public in the campaign against social security fraud. [93748]

Mr. James Gray: What recent representations he has received over his proposals for eradication of social security fraud. [93749]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are strengthening the social security system to cut down on fraud and error, and the reforms that we are making will strengthen public confidence and support.

Mr. Lilley: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply, but can he confirm that the truth is that the


Government have run down the beat-a-cheat line and closed down the spotlight on fraud campaign, which was succeeding in saving more than £100 million a year? They have so starved the Benefits Agency fraud investigation service that it has had to shut down its operations because of lack of money. Is not the truth that the Government have gone soft on fraud?

Mr. Darling: No, it is not. I shall deal first with the national benefits hotline. We receive about 13,000 to 14,000 calls a month on the hotline, and from 1 November we shall spend nearly £500,000 on another advertising campaign because we believe that the public support and information that we get are invaluable in support of the fight against fraud. Since we came into office, we have increased by a third the number of serious cases that are prosecuted, which has resulted in a 50 per cent. increase in custodial offences. Many of the spotlight on fraud campaign features that worked have been incorporated into the Department's fight against fraud.
I remind the right hon. Gentleman that, at the end of his term as Secretary of State, two out of every five income support cases were being paid without sufficient evidence to justify them. Because of the changes that we have made to ensure that we get benefit claims right in the first place, we shall save £1 billion on that benefit alone during this Parliament.

Mr. Gray: Surely that smells of complacency. Is the Secretary of State aware that, in the last year of the previous Government, we achieved our fraud savings target by more than £50 million, whereas he is below his target by some £200 million? He says that he is not soft on fraud. Why, then, has he cancelled LOFIT—the London Organised Fraud Investigation Team?

Mr. Darling: That project was wound up—it was run not by my Department but by London boroughs—because of internal difficulties that made it impossible for it to carry on. That decision was taken by the London boroughs responsible for it. I remind the hon. Gentleman, that in addition to ensuring that we get income support cases right, since October we have insisted that every claimant establishes his identity before his claim can be accepted, which never happened under the Conservatives. We have stopped the Post Office redirecting housing benefit cheques to bogus addresses, something that the previous Government did not pursue. We have ensured that the benefit fraud inspectorate examines the 30 councils that spend the most on housing benefit to ensure that their procedures are tightened up, and we are now cross-checking information held by the Inland Revenue, the Benefits Agency and local authorities. There are more inspections because we are concerned not just about detecting fraud, but about preventing it from entering the system in the first place. Above all, the approach that we are now adopting is not only more robust, but supported by the National Audit Office, which, as the hon. Gentleman should know, expressed concern about the DSS accounts in just about every year that the Conservatives were in office.

Ms Ruth Kelly: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate Westminster council on its anti-fraud strategy, which has resulted in one of its Tory councillors spending some time at Her Majesty's pleasure? Will he

assure me that his new anti-fraud strategy will be implemented by councils throughout the country, because fraud is completely unacceptable, wherever it is found?

Mr. Darling: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is important that not only the Benefits Agency but the local authorities that administer the housing benefits scheme understand that fraud is a serious problem. It undermines the general public's confidence in the system and is bad for the perception of those who legitimately claim housing benefit. We have offered much help to councils to ensure that they have access to Benefits Agency systems, that we all hold the same information and that we get claims right. We started a joint initiative with councils to ensure that housing benefit cheques are not redirected to bogus addresses.
All the steps that we are taking are causing a significant change of culture in the system, because we must make inroads into the sums lost in the past through fraud and error.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend referred to claimants having to establish their identity at the point at which they receive benefit. Is the national identity card back on the agenda?

Mr. Darling: No, what we are asking is that everyone who claims benefit must establish his or her identity, which means producing either a national insurance number or sufficient information to ensure that we can identify the national insurance number. The problem in the past was that many officers paid out benefit without checking that people were who they said that they were. It is all very well for Opposition Members to sneer, but for 18 years they did absolutely nothing about those problems.

Mr. Eric Forth: Surely what the Government have been doing has undermined the efforts of local authorities to tackle this serious problem. Will the Secretary of State give us details about the amount of successful fraud detection by local authorities between, let us say, May 1997 and now?

Mr. Darling: I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he had thought for just one moment before he asked his question, he would have realised that the Government have taken many initiatives with local authorities. I mentioned the service that will prevent redirection of housing benefit cheques, and the fact that we are giving local authorities, for the first time, access to the Benefits Agency system to ensure that the information that we all hold is exactly the same. We are sharing information in a way that never happened in the past. In addition, we have set up two pilot projects to find better ways of ensuring that the Benefits Agency and councils work together, so that there is one interview with an individual, the same information is held by both organisations and we get claims right.
The difference between this and the previous Government is that we are determined to tackle the causes of fraud and error rather than spending all our time trying to chase the symptoms. I think that the majority of the public would support us in doing that.

Incapacity Benefit

Mr. Tony McWalter: What proposals he has for defining the qualifications needed by the personal advisers who will be implementing the successor regime to the all-work test for incapacity benefit. [93750]

Mr. Bob Blizzard: What progress he has made in devising a replacement for the all-work test. [93760]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): Our proposed replacement for the all-work test will collect information about what people can do, as well as what they cannot do. We are considering the results of a first pilot study of a proposed personal capability assessment, and we are also training personal advisers in disability awareness.

Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. The qualities required by personal advisers may be significant, given that they will have to analyse the capacities of people with Asperger's syndrome and other difficult conditions, and the state of the workplaces where those people may have the capacity to work. Given those complexities, will my he assure us that personal advisers will be fully trained and highly qualified?

Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend makes some important points, and I can give him the assurance that he seeks. The training that personal advisers receive will be tailored to their individual needs. For instance, someone who has previously worked as a disability employment adviser will have different training needs from someone who has worked on housing benefit. To date, personal advisers have gone through an average of 200 hours training; some have received 300 or 400 hours. Particular emphasis is placed on all special client groups, although more time is spent on disability awareness than on understanding the needs of other groups. We have had input from a wide range of voluntary organisations, such as Scope, Mencap, MIND and the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, on the content of the training programmes.

Mr. Blizzard: Does my hon. Friend agree that nothing discredits the system that we inherited from the previous Government more than the all-work test? In devising a new test, will he ensure that more decisions are reached correctly at the first time of asking, so as to avoid lengthy appeals? Will he ensure that the questions asked elicit the real nature of the disability, because disabled people often say that they can perform a particular function but do not mention the extreme difficulty that they have in performing it? Sometimes that renders them ineligible for the benefit. Will he deal in particular with the problems of people who suffer from ME?

Mr. Bayley: The trend in appeals shows that, as a result of the changes that our Department has made, more people are getting the right decision first time, but there is some way to go, and we shall press ahead with that. The all-work test remains the same for the gateway to incapacity benefit: we have not tightened up the system.

However, we are taking a wide range of measures to improve the quality of the advice that Benefits Agency medical services practitioners give on claims, including those involving ME. My hon. Friend has taken a special interest in chronic fatigue syndrome, so he will know that the advice to personal advisers and to doctors making assessments that is published by the Department in the "Disability Handbook" provides much detail about ME and states that it must be taken seriously.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Is there not something rather cruel about the idea of slackening the medical criteria, while at the same time introducing means-testing for incapacity benefits? Is it really fair to fund this easing of medical criteria on the back of the savings of seriously disabled people?

Mr. Bayley: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands what we are doing. We are not slackening the medical criteria; we are not changing them in any way. What we are doing is expanding the all-work test into a personal capability assessment. As well as taking into account what a person cannot do, and thereby assessing that person's entitlement to benefit, we take into account what that person can do. The information will then be fed in to assist disabled people who want to return to work to achieve their aim.
According to the Government's labour force survey, 1 million people who have been consigned to life on benefits in the long term by the policies of the last Government say that they want to work, and we are providing the help and advice that will enable more of them to do so.

Mr. Desmond Swayne: Can the hon. Gentleman explain the change in Government policy that occurred between the passage of the Bill that became the Social Security Act 1998, when the Government rejected Conservative proposals that there should be legally qualified chairmen and that doctors should be present when appeals were being heard requiring complex medical evidence, and the passage on 18 May this year of a statutory instrument making precisely that provision?

Mr. Bayley: We have made provision for a medically qualified person, as well as a legally qualified person, to be on the board when appeals relating to incapacity benefit are being heard. We have done that because we believe it is right. As for the arcane debate in relation to the 1998 Act, the Opposition can take responsibility for it. Nothing in the legislation prevented the Government from doing what we believed needed to be done, and that is what we have done.

Sir Robert Smith: Will assessments of people who can perform a task take into account whether it is medically advisable for them to undertake that task? I have a constituent whose joints were damaged by a wasting disease, and who has to have replacement joints. The surgeon has said that, if the task is carried out, another operation will be needed far sooner than it would be if my constituent rested the


joints and engaged in limited activity with them. Although that person is able to perform the task in question, that task in itself will worsen the condition.

Mr. Bayley: I would be extremely concerned if any doctor recommended that a person should return to work if work would worsen the person's condition. That is certainly not the Government's intention.
I hope that this will reassure the hon. Gentleman. It will be made clear to anyone discussing with a personal adviser the scope that exists for that person to return to work that any job seeking, or job taking, is entirely voluntary. Once the service is up and running, people on incapacity benefit will be required to discuss what scope there is for a return to work, but they and they alone, as individuals, will decide whether to convert that scope into job seeking.

Mr. Nigel Waterson: What proposals he has to amend the rules relating to incapacity benefit. [93751]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We are determined to bring the benefits system up to date, and to do more for those who need help most. During the Report stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, I made it clear that the principles that underpin these reforms were right, but that I was prepared to consider the details in the light of future representations. That remains the case.

Mr. Waterson: Does the Secretary of State accept that applying means-testing to incapacity benefit not only undermines the contributory principle, but constitutes a massive disincentive for constituents—including mine—who have disabilities, and who want to save and make provision for themselves?

Mr. Darling: No, I do not accept that. I think it right that, when people draw down a pension early after retiring through incapacity, and when they have a significant income, that income ought to be taken into account. I bear in mind the fact that about 300,000 people who receive incapacity benefit along with an occupational pension have an income of some £400 a week, and the fact that nearly 50 per cent. of incapacity benefit recipients with occupational pensions are in the top income brackets.
I believe that the social security system needs to do far more for those who need help most. That is why we are increasing the amount of help that we give to severely disabled children by nearly £27 a week, and in some cases—involving those with particular difficulties—by more than £35 a week. If we are to do that, however, there will come a stage at which we must consider where else the system is paying benefits to people on whom, owing to changes in circumstances over the past 50 years, we might not wish to focus our activities. I believe that the principles that underpin the Government's approach are absolutely right. I have said that I am prepared to look at the detail. I am doing that and will have further proposals, but the principle that the Government's efforts are best directed towards those who need help most is right.

Mr. David Winnick: Will my right hon. Friend listen very carefully to those on our side who have criticised his proposals, particularly those who have

campaigned for disability benefits for years on end? I have in mind Lord Ashley and Lord Morris. Will my right hon. Friend bear it in mind that, although many of us recognise the improvements that have undoubtedly taken place in the past two years for many people who are affected by his Department—some of us have taken the opportunity to point that out on many occasions—there is deep concern over what is being proposed? To avoid what occurred on 20 May in the House of Commons happening again, I hope that he will bear in mind our concern.

Mr. Darling: I made it clear that I am and have been listening to representations over the past few months. I will have further proposals, but I repeat that I believe that the principles that underpin the approach that we are taking in this and other parts of the Bill are absolutely right.
The Government have given other help to disabled people. We have introduced the disabled person's tax credit, the disability income guarantee and the new deal for the disabled—all those are new and were introduced by the present Government. None of them came from the Tory Government.
The Tory opposition to this part of the Bill is wholly opportunistic. I respect the views of some of my colleagues and, indeed, some Cross Benchers in the other place. I will listen to them, but I hope that my hon. Friend will accept, when he looks at what the Government are doing in the round, that we are greatly helping people who are disabled and doing far more than any Government have for those who need help most. I hope that, when it comes to the final vote, he will look at those matters in the round, support the Government and not go into the Lobby with Conservative Members.

Mr. Steve Webb: The arguments that the Secretary of State has used for means-testing incapacity benefit—the fact that some recipients have big company pensions—would apply equally to retirement pensions, yet the Government think that it is wrong on principle to means-test the national insurance retirement pension. Why is it wrong to means-test the retirement pension, but right to means-test incapacity benefit?

Mr. Darling: Pensions that are drawn early after someone has retired because of incapacity are meant to replace income; incapacity benefit was originally designed in the same way. When the hon. Gentleman reflects that 50 years ago, less than 30 per cent. of people had occupational pensions and that now nearly 86 per cent. of men have such provision, he will realise that we cannot go on ignoring that fact. I understand that the Liberal Democrats' view is sometimes different and that they have all sorts of spending proposals without any means of financing them. However, there comes a stage when, if we want to do more for those who are most severely disabled, particularly children who have been disabled from birth or at an early stage, we will have to look at what is happening throughout the labour market and ensure that the social security system reflects those changes. At the moment, such people are paid so little that they are living on income support for the whole of their lives. Our changes will lift them above income support.

Mr. Barry Gardiner: I welcome the Government's statement in another place that those on the


higher care component of disability living allowance will be exempted from the clawback in incapacity benefit. However, can my right hon. Friend assure me that the Government, in modernising welfare, will continue to protect those in greatest need, particularly people who, through the severity of their disability, have never been able to work?

Mr. Darling: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I confirm that Baroness Hollis, the Under-Secretary of State, made it clear in the other place that the Government, having listened to representations, would exempt from the proposals those who are most severely disabled. That change will be widely welcomed. I accept the arguments in respect of it. The Government will ensure that the appropriate amendments are made to the Bill.
As I was saying to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb), when I took over this job I was struck by how little we were doing for those who are most severely disabled. I do not think that any Labour Government could complete a term of office and simply allow that to continue. I am therefore determined to do more and more to help those who are severely disabled—those who will never, ever work—and I feel very strongly that, as a matter of decency, we owe that to them.
I feel equally strongly that the current benefits system is increasingly out of date, and that it will have to keep abreast of changes in society and in the labour market. I therefore believe that the principles underlying our approach are right, but am listening to representations on the detail.

Mr. David Willetts: Does the Secretary of State understand that there is so much cross-party opposition to his proposals not because of points of detail, but because of points of principle, such as the principle of a contributory incapacity benefit? I remind him that it is also a matter of holding him to account for his own statements about encouraging people to save for their own retirement.
How can the Government say that they want to encourage people to take out pensions—we heard it again today from the Minister of State, Department of Social Security—but at the same time penalise them if they have an occupational or personal pension—but only if they a pension; the Government are interested in no other type of savings—by depriving them of their incapacity benefit? That is manifestly an attack on saving and is inconsistent with the Government's own statements.

Mr. Darling: We are talking about sums that are drawn down early by someone who has come out of the labour force because of an incapacity. The hon. Gentleman said that it was a matter of principle. I was interested in a letter—a copy of which someone was kind enough to send me—sent to all Tory Members by the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), saying that today's Question Time would be a useful opportunity to see how determined the Government were to reverse the amendments in the other place. The hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar said, however, that
a degree of subtlety is required in that the Government is keen to brand the defeats as Tory plotting.

The letter goes on to invite Tory Members to a plotting meeting, at 1.15 pm, in the Tea Room.
The Tory opposition to the changes that we are proposing in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill is wholly opportunistic. When people see what the Government have done for disabled people and judge that against what the previous Government did—blocking the changes that we tried to make in establishing the Disability Rights Commission, and at every turn disadvantaging disabled people—most of them will realise that our position is one of principle, in stark contrast to the position taken by Conservative Members.

Mr. Willetts: My hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) is renowned for his subtlety, and it is a great asset to have him on the team.
The Secretary of State still does not seem to realise the significance of the defeats that the Government suffered in the other place the other week. In the media, he claimed that the defeats were inflicted by some sort of backward-looking alliance of hereditary peers. Does he not realise that, even if not a single hereditary peer had voted, the Government would still have gone down to a humiliating defeat? Does that not tell him something about how wrong the proposals are?

Mr. Darling: No, it does not. On the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill and other measures currently being considered by the other place, it is quite clear that the Conservative party and hereditary peers are determined to squeeze every last opportunity out of the time they have remaining in the other place.
I take with great seriousness much of what many Members said in the other place, but find it difficult to take seriously what the hon. Gentleman has to say. Two weeks ago, at the Tory party conference, he gave a pledge to cut social security spending as a proportion of national income. However, his colleagues—Conservative Members—in the other place have now backed amendments totalling £3.5 billion of expenditure commitments. The hon. Gentleman invites us to believe that he is a man of principle and that he will cut social security spending, but Conservative Members never did that in all their time in government. In real terms, the previous Government increased social security spending by 90 per cent., although the gap between rich and poor and the number of people born in poverty increased year after year. That is a damning indictment of the failure of the previous, Tory Government.

Earnings Disregards

Mr. Jim Cousins: What is his policy on the uprating of earnings disregards. [93753]

The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): The earnings disregards are reviewed annually as part of the uprating process.

Mr. Cousins: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. As he well knows, for many years the previous Government restricted the weekly earning power of those on means-tested benefits to £5 for a single person and £15 for those with families. Through that policy they


ring-fenced the shame and misery of those without work, bringing the fear of fraud to millions of decent families and taxing the energy and enterprise of the poorest in a way that no one has ever suggested should be done to the richest. They made women fearful of looking after their grandchildren and men fearful of mending their mate's car or painting their auntie's house. They restricted self-employment and limited community business. Following the introduction of the minimum wage, the disregard is worth 90 minutes of earning power or four hours for someone with a family. Is it not time that that, too, was modernised?

Mr. Rooker: My hon. Friend is right. He asks what our policy is. It is to review the disregards annually as part of the uprating process. They have not been uprated for several years—not since 1988 for income support or since 1996 for the jobseeker's allowance. However, there have been other changes in the welfare benefits system, not least the working families tax credit, which means that it is no longer possible for any family person to claim that they are better off on benefit than in work.

Mr. Eric Pickles: May I associate myself with the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) in welcoming the Minister to his post? It is a difficult one and I wish him well.
What incentive does the Minister's response give to people on low incomes? The Government have been in power for two and a half years, but their latest "Households Below Average Income" document clearly shows that the number of people at the poorer end of the income scale has increased and that the trend is upwards. Will he name a year when poor people will be better off under a Labour Government? Will it be next year or the year after? Will it be 2000, 2001 or 2002? Or is what he has said an example of spin over substance? Does he believe that the Government are tackling poverty merely by saying that they are going to do so? Will he name a year?

Mr. Rooker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his generous welcome. I know that it was not well meant. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] No one has ever accused me of being subtle, so I have no apology to make. Our document measures the year before our changes came into force and shows the legacy of the previous Government, which will still be rolling along for some time. The hon. Gentleman asked for an example. Constituents of mine—and those of most hon. Members—who have been claiming family credit and have now gone on to the working families tax credit will be substantially better off under this Government, notwithstanding those—

Mr. Pickles: Which year?

Mr. Rooker: This year. I am talking about those who are transferring now as family credit comes to an end. Those who are on the minimum wage will be substantially better off this year.

Jobseeker's Allowance

Dr. Brian Iddon: What plans he has to review the jobseeker's allowance regulations. [93754]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): A large-scale research programme to evaluate the jobseeker's allowance has been conducted and the final report in the series will be published early next year. The findings from that programme will enable us to consider what changes we might need to make. In the meantime, we will consider changes to the jobseeker's allowance when problems occur or when a reason for amendments is identified.

Dr. Iddon: I thank my hon. Friend for that announcement. Does she agree that the Tories introduced the present regulations not only as a means of cutting benefits for those made unemployed by their policies, but as one of 30 fiddles to hide the true unemployment rate at the time? Is she aware that people who are made redundant when their firm goes into receivership or liquidation cannot claim this allowance at the moment? Previously, such people were able to claim unemployment benefit, which was recovered from any payment due in lieu. Will she consider correcting that unfairness?

Angela Eagle: We are aware that people who have money owing because their employer has gone bankrupt are not able to receive benefit. We will therefore propose regulations at the earliest opportunity to remedy that anomaly. In future, jobseeker's allowance and income support will not be refused because of earnings owed to people when their jobs end.

Child Support Agency

Mr. Graham Brady: What recent representations he has received about his proposals to reform the Child Support Agency. [93755]

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): We have received a wide range of views on the detail of our proposals since the White Paper was published. I am glad to say that there is widespread support for the radical changes to the current system.

Mr. Brady: To inform future contributions to the debate, will the Secretary of State tell the House how many parents will have their entitlement to maintenance reduced, and by how much?

Mr. Darling: We expect that about 1 million children will gain because of the changes. That contrasts with the fact that, at the moment, some 66 per cent. of children do not see all the benefit to which they are entitled under the present system.

Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing changes to the CSA regulations, and on offering the prospect of greater fairness in the making of maintenance assessments. Will he consider people who are working part time or in seasonal labour? The CSA often takes into consideration


only the income based on periods when such people are in employment. Would not it be much fairer to take into account annual income when assessing maintenance, rather than three or four weeks when such people are in employment? The CSA has applied that principle in some cases, and it is difficult to understand how it can do so in some instances but not in others.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises a difficult point which also concerns people whose income can change dramatically because of the availability of overtime. The difficulty is that, at the moment, it takes up to 100 pieces of information to make a basic calculation. Under the new system, we will be able to calculate the sum due in a matter of days, rather than months. That means that where someone's income fluctuates because of the circumstances described by my hon. Friend, it will be far easier to make a more accurate assessment of what is due. There is a balance to be struck in terms of what is fair to the parent without care, as well as to the parent with care. However, I am sure that if we simplify the system to ensure that the calculations are made more quickly, we will have a better chance of making sure that we do the right thing by both parents—but above all, by the children concerned.

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: In the new proposals, what will deal with a parent without care who is self-employed and decides to ignore the CSA? I have constituents who have been waiting two and a half years for any payment, and some people are getting away with blue murder.

Mr. Darling: In the White Paper, we are considering what greater civil penalties can be imposed where parents will not co-operate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that the CSA will be given powers, where appropriate, to get to the records held by the Inland Revenue to find out how much someone earns. Many of us have constituents who are not receiving a penny from, usually, the estranged husband, who can be seen driving around town in a BMW and leading a life style that is wholly inconsistent with his assertion that he has no money. I am sorry to say that, as I understand it, the Conservative party is against our proposal.

Ms Claire Ward: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement that more will be done to give the CSA power to investigate fathers who are not paying their children's maintenance, but will he ensure that the agency does not tackle only the soft targets: those who are already making a contribution and are being persistently pursued for more? Will he also ensure that bureaucracy is cut back so that my constituents can get a reply to their letters and telephone calls within a reasonable time?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend raises two points. One concerns the administration of the Child Support Agency, which we are overhauling. Part of the problem is that its case load has increased dramatically—by about 60 per cent.—in the past couple of years, and that is putting a strain on staff. The agency has a high staff turnover, a problem which we are seeking to tackle, and the complexity of the rules and regulations under which it has to operate leads to difficulties. I regard the situation as wholly unsatisfactory, which is why we are simplifying

the rules and regulations so that instead of 100 pieces of information, three or four will be sufficient to get claims into payment.
I agree with my hon. Friend's other point, which was that equity demands that people believe that the CSA will pursue anybody who does not pay, and not only those who are more readily accessible. Currently, far too many staff are employed assessing claims and very few enforcing them. I believe that as a result of the changes that we are making far more attention will be given to enforcement, carried out in a fair way.

Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Secretary of State answer the question that my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) asked? How many parents with care will have their maintenance assessment reduced under the Government's proposals?

Mr. Darling: I understand the hon. Lady's point, but let me repeat that, as a result of the changes that we will make, 1 million more children will get the maintenance to which they are entitled. It is perfectly true that, as a result of the simplified formula, which was published in the White Paper—the ready reckoners are there—some parents will pay more, and some less, but the fundamental point that concerns Labour Members is the fact that those 1 million more children will receive their benefit. I wish that Conservative Members would pay more attention to those children rather than concentrating on those who seek to dodge their responsibility.

Helen Jackson: What responses he has received to the White Paper, "A New Contract for Welfare: Children's Rights and Parents' Responsibilities", (Cm 4349); and if he will make a statement. [93759]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Angela Eagle): As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already said, responses to the White Paper show continuing support for radical reform of the child support system.

Helen Jackson: Have the responses reflected the total muddle, confusion and inefficiency that have dogged thousands of children and families because of the way in which the Child Support Agency was introduced in the previous Parliament? Thousands have been driven into our advice surgeries, desperate for some response from Government. Will my hon. Friend assure us that the Government will concentrate on prioritising the needs of children; offering wherever possible a face-to-face consultation as opposed to the thousands of telephone calls that people currently have to make; and, above all, ensuring that there is an efficient and fully prepared set-up to deal with the changes?

Angela Eagle: We are acutely aware that, because of the muddle that the agency got in when it was introduced and the extreme complexity of the formula that it has had to try to implement, what my hon. Friend describes has come to pass. As constituency Members, we have all seen a string of people who have been affected in various ways by the agency's inability to do its job effectively. That is why the move to a much simpler formula for calculating maintenance has been widely welcomed. Changes to child


support regulations are at the centre of our fight against child poverty. It is essential to get maintenance into payment efficiently and effectively.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In considering these responses, will the Minister consider offering congratulations to the chief executive of the Child Support Agency, Mrs. Faith Boardman, for her speedy, thorough and comprehensive replies to letters from Members, of which there are many? In so doing, will the Minister consider whether this splendid example of public service might not be taken up by Ministers, some of whom appear to treat Members' letters with contempt and delay replies for four months or more?

Angela Eagle: I am more than happy to pass on my congratulations to Faith Boardman on the job that she does in extremely difficult circumstances. As far as I am aware, delays in ministerial replies are not as long as the hon. Gentleman says, except in very occasional circumstances.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: May I pass on to my hon. Friend the support that I have received from my constituents for the changes that are proposed for the Child Support Agency? Their only concern is the length of time that it will take to bring in the new and simplified procedures. Has my hon. Friend received any assurances from the Conservative party that when the necessary legislation is introduced, Conservative Members will help to speed its passage through the House, so that we can implement the changes, which are much desired, as soon as possible?

Angela Eagle: I cannot tell my hon. Friend that we have received any assurances from the Conservative party. If I had been responsible for the mess that it introduced, I would be less happy about coming forward to criticise how things are going now.

Mr. David Willetts: You voted for it.

Angela Eagle: We voted against the Second Reading of the Bill that introduced the CSA. Many of the things that we warned against during the passage of the Bill in 1991 came to pass.
I can reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that at the centre of our deliberations are the issues that her constituents bring to her, and my constituents bring to me, about the difficulties that have been caused. We must remember that we have an absolute duty to ensure that the 1.8 million children who are left without any support as a result of their parents having abandoned the family home are supported. The Government need to facilitate that in the most effective and efficient way.

Mr. John Bercow: In legislating for parents' responsibilities, would the Minister agree with me that it is essential in each case to be absolutely certain who the parents are? Further to that obvious point, and given the fact that one of my constituents has been instructed by the Child Support Agency to make payments of £111.92 per week, a sum which he cannot afford, to support a child who he insists to this day is not his, will the Minister agree that in any reform package for the CSA

my constituent should have a right to demand a DNA test, which he has thus far unavailingly requested since February, to establish beyond doubt whether he is or is not the parent?

Angela Eagle: I never thought the day would come when I agreed with the hon. Gentleman—the week may even get better as it goes on. Clearly it undermines the whole system if parentage is not properly established. We want to do our best to establish DNA testing to solve the few instances where there is controversy over parentage.

New Deal (Disabled)

Mr. David Watts: What lessons his Department has drawn from the working of the new deal for the disabled in helping disabled people obtain employment. [93761]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): There is clear evidence that the new deal for disabled people is helping people to move from incapacity benefit into work. One thousand people have found jobs through these new deal pilots so far.

Mr. Watts: I thank the Minister for his reply. May I ask my hon. Friend to ensure that any problems that have been highlighted during the pilot scheme are resolved before the scheme goes national? Given the concern about the closure of Remploy factories, will he give me a guarantee that when the new system is up and running, when pilot schemes are extended, and when there are new deals for the disabled throughout the country, there will be better, not fewer, options for the disabled?

Mr. Bayley: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend those assurances. We have learned a great deal from the new deal pilots. We have found that it is possible to help people with a wide range of disabilities, including some who have been extremely seriously disabled. When I visited one of the pilots a few weeks ago in the north of Scotland, I met a man who had been unemployed because of incapacity for 29 years. The new deal had provided him with an opportunity that he had sought for a long time—the opportunity to work.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment is making available additional resources to pay for supported employment. That will help Remploy and other organisations that are providing supported employment.

Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister ensure that he takes more seriously than it has been taken before the research commissioned from the Institute for Employment Studies that suggests an alarming shortfall in future supported employment placements? The figures suggest that there may be a deficiency of between 40,000, on a narrow estimate, and up to 179,000, on a broad estimate, of potential future demand for supported places. Will he therefore ensure that if he implements a national roll-out of the new deal for disabled people, he and his colleagues will provide the places before the scheme


comes into effect, so that they do not disappoint the many disabled people who would wish to avail themselves of those places?

Mr. Bayley: There is certainly a need to provide supported employment, but it would be wrong to characterise the new deal as a scheme that simply provides opportunities for people to work on Government-financed or Government-subsidised schemes. It is far

wider than that. We have to ensure that work pays by changing the benefit and tax systems that we inherited; and we have to ensure that people who are disabled and seek work get the personal advice and support that they need to obtain employment. We are doing that. We must ensure that barriers to work—some employers are good but others are much poorer—are removed, which we are doing through the disability discrimination legislation. We must advance on all fronts, and we are doing so.

Points of Order

Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Most Members of this House, whatever their political party, are justly proud of the hard-won freedom of speech we have in this country and the freedom of legitimate, peaceful protest. We were surprised last week that the Home Secretary did not come to the House to discuss the public order situation surrounding the visit of President Jiang Zemin. Have you heard whether the Home Secretary intends to come to the House to discuss the unprecedented suppression of the demonstrators last week?

Madam Speaker: As far as I am aware, neither the Home Secretary nor any other Minister is coming to make a statement. Of course, when the Home Secretary comes to answer questions, the hon. Gentleman may table a question on this matter. No doubt he will do so.

Orders of the Day — Financial Services and Markets Bill (Suspension)

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill:

1. Standing Committee A shall report the Bill to the House, so far as then amended, not later than Thursday 11th November.
2. On the report of the Bill to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament.
3. If a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Bill reported to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be read the first and second time without Question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and shall stand committed, in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in this session, to a Standing Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Standing Committee on the Bill in this session.

I am pleased and privileged to move the motion. Its effect is to stay proceedings on the Financial Services and Markets Bill in Standing Committee A at the end of this Session and to carry it over into the next Session. The Bill will then be resumed in the next Session at the point in Committee that it reached before Prorogation.
This is the first occasion on which a motion has been moved to carry over a public Bill and I am grateful to Opposition Front Benchers for their agreement to apply this procedure to this important Bill. I think that we can all agree that it will receive better and more detailed parliamentary scrutiny through being considered to a timetable that will not be constrained by the end of the current parliamentary Session. I hope that, in time, this procedure will become regular parliamentary practice because it will help to maximise parliamentary time and will lead to more thorough scrutiny.
The carry-over procedure was recommended to the House in the first report from the Modernisation Committee in July 1997. That report was agreed unanimously by the Committee, which included representatives of the official Opposition. The report said:
The Committee agrees with the principle that, in defined circumstances and subject to certain safeguards, Government bills may be carried over from one session to the next in the same way as hybrid and private Bills".
The Modernisation Committee's first report was approved by the House, without a vote, on 13 November 1997. In that debate, the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a distinguished former Leader of the House, said:
On the carry-over of Bills and paragraph 102 of the report, I think that it is right to have the flexibility that applies to private and hybrid Bills, not least because it is one way of handling the too frequent problem where many amendments come back from the House of Lords and we rush them through in the last three or four days.
No one could argue that this is satisfactory. The problem arises because, inevitably, some Bills will be introduced later in the Session; they cannot all be done earlier. A genuine pressure on time causes that. Used sensibly, this proposal is a way of ensuring better scrutiny at that stage.—[Official Report, 13 November 1997; Vol. 300, c. 1080.]

Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Minister really saying that it is a good thing to bail


the Government out of difficulties caused by the bad management of business? It is bad management for a Government to leave the conclusion of important Bills to such a late date in a Session that a large number of amendments from another place cannot be handled properly in the House of Commons. The reason that the Minister has given for introducing this new policy is not very convincing. Should not he concentrate on getting the Government's act together and managing business more effectively?

Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we need to manage business effectively and make good use of parliamentary time. I have no criticism of any of his tactics in the House, as he uses the conventions properly. With the support of Opposition Front-Bench Members, the Government advocate this approach in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill because we believe that it is a complex and important measure with important principles that require careful thought and analysis. It would not make sense to lose the Bill, and the City would not support that.
The Modernisation Committee subsequently produced another report on the more detailed arrangements. That report recommended, first, that Bills be carried over by ad hoc motions, rather than under a general Standing Order. Secondly, it recommended that the procedure should be used on Bills that had not yet left the House in which they originated, rather than on ones already going through the second House. The Committee's third recommendation was that the eligibility of Bills for carry-over must be settled by agreement through the usual channels. That report was also unanimous and was agreed by the House, without a vote, on 4 June 1998.
The Committee set out a number of conditions for carry-over. The first was that the Government should identify as early as possible any Bill that they wished to be carried over. The second was that carry-over should be used only for Bills that were to be subject to Select Committee-style scrutiny, or which were introduced after a certain period in the Session. The third recommendation was that no Bill should be carried over more than once. The Financial Services and Markets Bill fully satisfies all those conditions.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Will the Minister say whether the Labour party in opposition ever pressed for carry-over provisions to be introduced?

Mr. Tipping: The introduction of such provisions is one of those matters that the House must consider very carefully indeed. For my part, I have long advocated the notion of carry-over. As I said, the Financial Services and Markets Bill has satisfied the conditions for carry-over set by the House.
The Government gave the earliest possible notice of their intention by announcing at the time of last year's Queen's Speech that they would seek agreement to carry the Bill over.

Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the Minister think that carry-over would have been necessary if the original draft Bill, which was published

on the last day before the summer recess in July 1998, had been halfway decent? Instead, it was so heavily flawed that much additional work had to be done on it.

Mr. Tipping: The Bill is a complex measure, and it has the support of the City. Clearly, such Bills can be improved by parliamentary scrutiny, and I am delighted that this Bill was able to benefit from new procedures. A Joint Committee was able to look at the Bill and make recommendations, many of which have been accepted.

Mr. John Bercow: The Minister's emollient style—it resembles that of a good general practitioner—is almost universally admired in the House. It seems, however, not entirely to atone for the relative weakness of his argument. Will the Minister reflect on the fact that, if the logic of his answer to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton)—that a good and complex Bill can be improved by scrutiny—is pursued too far, it may come to justify rolling over every legislative measure that the Government introduce to the House?

Mr. Tipping: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generous comments—emollience in a great dose. For my part, I admire the hon. Gentleman's more usual rough and ready style. Individual Bills must be judged on their merits. The Government do not seek to carry over a host of Bills to the next Session. We made it clear at the beginning of the current Session that the Bill was complex and that we would seek to carry it over.
Parts of the Bill were published in draft form in July 1998 and April 1999. The Joint Committee was set up to consider the draft Bill in March. It conducted a thorough examination, and the Government have agreed many of its recommendations. The Financial Services and Markets Bill is detailed and complex. It has been improved by the Joint Committee, and I expect further improvements to be made by the Standing Committee and during the remaining parliamentary stages.

Mr. Loughton: If such great consideration and so much time was given, why had the Joint Committee less than two months to complete its deliberations before the deadline for the first report? The Committee was limited to looking into only six areas among the 367 clauses of the Bill. If the Government offered time so generously, why was the Committee, which was so important and which did such a good job, not given more time for scrutiny?

Mr. Tipping: I thank Lord Burns and the Joint Committee for their work on the Bill. My impression is that the Committee examined the key points and made helpful and valuable adjustments to the Bill, many of which the Government have been prepared to consider. The Committee's report, when it eventually came, was unanimous, but—let me be emollient again—we are proposing a new procedure and it may be that we should in future look again at the timetabling of Bills.
Today marks another stage in the implementation of the Modernisation Committee's work to adjust the procedures of the House to the needs of an effective Parliament, ensuring greater parliamentary scrutiny of an important Bill. Many people outside the House will benefit from the Bill, which has substantial economic implications. I thank,


again, the Joint Committee for its work, and the members of the Standing Committee for their current and future work on the Bill. I commend the motion to the House.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: The Minister has outlined a case for modest constitutional reform in line with the proposals of the Select Committee on Modernisation. I approach such proposals with considerable caution. As a member of the forces of conservatism, I recognise that these proposals are not always brought forward entirely with the public good in mind. There is usually a strong element of party advantage in any reform proposal. A healthy dose of scepticism is, therefore, in order when reforms are proposed. I do not go quite as far as the Duke of Wellington who, when presented with a proposal from one of his Ministers, is supposed to have responded: "Reform! Reform! Aren't things bad enough already?"
Nevertheless, without going quite as far as that previous leader of my party, I believe that any proposal of this nature should be carefully approached and circumscribed. For instance, I do not accept the Minister's observation that the occurrence should be a regular one and that the carry-over of Bills from one Session to another should take place more than infrequently. This proposal—if used—should be used with great precision; for example, it is certainly not appropriate to use it when a Bill has become bogged down in another place. Furthermore, it should be considered only when the Bill in question is of a technical nature.
After those opening observations, I turn to the Financial Services and Markets Bill, which could have been dealt with in one Session of Parliament if it had been brought forward more speedily and in better order. Undoubtedly, in the past, the rule of the House has been that a Bill should complete all its stages in both Houses in a single Session. This Bill—currently in Standing Committee—could have satisfied that rule if the Government had better understood, earlier, the complexity with which they were dealing.
The proposal to reform the regulatory arrangements for financial services was announced soon after the 1997 general election. At that time, the important issues of justice and fairness were not fully understood by the Treasury; nor was the possible conflict with the European convention on human rights—a convention which the Government are simultaneously incorporating into British law. The Bill published a year later, in 1998, was seriously defective; indeed, it was unworkable in a number of respects. To improve that draft Bill, it was submitted to a Joint Committee. It was planned that the Committee would sit in January this year, but it was eventually convened in March. As I pointed out on Second Reading, all participants found that the innovation was successful. The Committee did not examine the whole Bill; because of the shortage of time, it concentrated on only six areas. It produced two reports—the latter of which appeared in May this year.
The Government accepted the majority of the Committee's conclusions. I am glad that they did so. Indeed, they stated:
The Government finds itself strongly in agreement with the great majority of the Committee's conclusions, although in some cases our proposed way forward is not identical to that recommended by the Committee.

Based on the recommendations and the Government's statement, the Opposition agreed that an amended Bill should be introduced immediately, and that its Committee stage should start in July and carry over to the next Session. Thus, we intended that the financial services industry should acquire a Bill that it needs urgently—indeed, without legislation, the present uncertainty is damaging to the market. It is also damaging that, in effect, the Financial Services Authority is operating without proper statutory cover. On the one hand, our intention was to get a Bill on the statute book without unnecessary delay. On the other hand, we intended further to improve the Bill—especially to ensure that the recommendations of the Joint Committee were fully implemented.

Mr. Loughton: My right hon. Friend is being overly generous to Treasury Ministers. The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that "very many" of the Burns Committee's recommendations had been accepted and that was later downgraded to "many", whereas my right hon. Friend has said that "most" of the recommendations were accepted. In fact, analysis of the final Bill shows that fewer than half of the Burns Committee's recommendations were taken on board when drafting the Bill.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: In the light of my hon. Friend's remarks, I shall briefly outline some of the Bill's provisions that were recommended by the Joint Committee. The Bill introduced in July was an improvement on the original draft. However, I and others, including my hon. Friend, said on Second Reading that the improvements, welcome though they were, left considerable gaps in the legislation and that we expected further major improvements to be made thereafter.
In some cases, our concerns centred on the items recommended by the Joint Committee that were not accepted by the Government. I refer particularly to the proposal to split the role of chairman and chief executive of the Financial Services Authority after the current incumbent leaves that—

Madam Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has given the House a long explanation and he will now come to his arguments relating to the procedural matters on the Order Paper.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I bow to your judgment, Madam Speaker. I thought that it would be for the benefit of the House to set out the stage we had reached in our deliberations on the Bill, so that the House could assess whether it was appropriate to carry the Bill over to the next Session.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a simple answer to the following question: is he in favour of the Bill being carried over—yes or no?

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: If the hon. Gentleman had been alert to the earlier part of my speech, he would have heard me say that the Opposition agreed to the carry-over, and I am now outlining the reasons for that. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not weary the House by asking me to repeat matters that I have already covered.
I have mentioned one or two of the Joint Committee's recommendations that the Government did not accept. I am also concerned about certain of the Committee's recommendations that the Government did accept, but which have not yet been fully incorporated in the legislation—for example, recommendations relating to market abuse. Those who engage in that practice can be fined, but that is not properly defined in the Bill as it stands. That defect in the Bill has attracted widespread criticism from outside.
Substantial areas of the Bill were not scrutinised at all by the Joint Committee and defects in those areas have become apparent only under scrutiny. During sittings of the Standing Committee in July and in the past week, we have found several examples. I have time to give only one example—that of internet trading or e-commerce, which is not satisfactorily dealt with in the Bill. The Bill attempts to regulate financial services on the basis of country of reception, whereas the Government as a whole, including the Department of Trade and Industry, have been urging this country to adopt country of origin regulation. Unless that part of the Bill is corrected, there will be a standing contradiction between the legislation and the Government's overseas negotiations.

Mr. Forth: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful case, which would persuade me that we should drop the Bill completely at this stage and rethink it properly, so that it can be re-presented at a future stage and dealt with carefully. The logic of my right hon. Friend's case is not that we should do some fudge and carry-over, but that the Bill should be dealt with in the proper, traditional way. It should be taken away and rethought entirely. All the weaknesses that he is so admirably pointing out should be resolved, and the Bill should be brought back to the House in a proper manner.

Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The Bill is proceeding in Standing Committee. I hope that my right hon. Friend will interest himself in our future deliberations. We have reached clause 52 out of 367 clauses, so there are plenty of opportunities for him to engage in the debate and seek the improvements that we all want.
The course of the Bill will depend on how the Government respond to the concerns, of which I have mentioned just two or three. The timing is also in the hands of the Committee. Although we are aware that the City and the financial services industry as a whole do not want any unnecessary delay, we all agree that it is better to produce a good Bill than one that proceeds on an unrealistic time scale.
We want a Bill that regulates a huge and very important British industry, but it must be the right Bill. We will support the Government when they do something right in the Bill—parts of the Bill have been significantly improved—but we will oppose the Government when there is something wrong in the Bill or when they refuse to accept the necessary improvements. The motion will assist the House if it helps the process of scrutiny and thereby gives the industry an Act of which the House can be proud.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly on the procedural motion relating to a complex Bill, which the Government seek to carry over and which, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said, we agree should be carried over into the next Session.
As this is the first time that any Bill has been carried over, it is important to put down one or two markers, as the Parliamentary Secretary did. I fear that unless we are careful, and unless future Governments of all persuasions are disciplined about the carry-over procedure, it will come to be used at times when legislation has been held up because it is highly controversial, or has been brought in late because other highly controversial legislation was held up and took too long.
I remind the House of the old nostrum, which has certainly been true during my 20 years here, that one of the few weapons, if not the only weapon, of an Opposition is delay. The proposed modernisation reduces the power of opposition. That should be done extremely carefully. Practically no one who has entered the House has not at some stage during his or her period here parroted the notion, which has a great deal to recommend its being parroted, that there is far too much legislation, it is far too complex and most of it is too little thought out. That would certainly apply to the Bill.
I am not saying that a great deal of work has not gone into the Bill behind the scenes and in Committee, but the fact that it has 367 clauses and 16 schedules is not a compliment to the Bill. It is an indication that Pascal's famous nostrum—"I am sorry I have had to write you such a long letter, but I did not have time to write you a short one"—applies in the present case, as elsewhere.
It has been noted in Standing Committee more than once, and perhaps more than half a dozen times, that the Bill will effectively achieve two things: it will create a framework within which the new Financial Services Authority can regulate and govern almost every aspect of financial services in the City; and, getting down to the nitty-gritty, it will give almost unfettered powers, to both the Treasury and the FSA, to regulate exactly how they choose. The Bill's 228 pages, which contain those 367 clauses and 16 schedules, are nothing more than broad guidelines that frequently descend into detail, but which always, I think I am right in saying, have a mop-up clause that provides for reopening the widest possible discretion for the Treasury and the authority.
For that reason, it is no exaggeration to say that, if he had been invited to do so, the parliamentary draftsman could have published a 50-page Bill, and it would have been a great deal better if he had. Then, at least, what I have described, and what I believe to be entirely true, would have been seen by the public at large and either accepted or not accepted. That would have enabled us to focus better on one or two fundamental points, which we may get wrong, and which we would have found easier to do without the obfuscation of length and detail. I shall give two examples.
First, we have frequently said, and have voted for the fact, that competition or competitiveness should be one of the objectives of the authority when regulations under the Bill are drafted. It should be included in the Bill. We would have no difficulty with that, because we have


argued for it, but any Minister or Opposition Front-Bench spokesman backed into a corner would undoubtedly say on "Question Time" or elsewhere that he strongly believed in the competitiveness of the City. There are four objectives, which rightly deal with proper regulation, but I do not think that we would have the slightest difficulty in combining those with competitiveness. That would help to keep the regulators, who will have massive discretion, on the right lines thereafter.
I am afraid that I am a lone voice on my second point. I said on Second Reading, and I repeat now, that one aspect of the Bill is deeply unwise: it makes anybody without the proper regulatory authority a criminal—I am not complaining about that—which of course puts enormous firepower into the hands of the FSA, but it goes on to say that anybody who fails, for one reason or another, to get himself properly authorised will be unable to enforce the deals into which he enters unless he can slot himself into some very narrow exceptions.
I am quite prepared to see unenforceability as a principle that is available for the safeguarding of citizens who do business with those who are unregulated, but I have emphasised more than once—and as anyone who has sat in the House and watched financial affairs debates over the past decade or two knows—that there are sharks on both sides of the water at all times in the City. There are sharks who will seek to prey on those who invest their money and there are investors who will seek to escape their legitimate liabilities by fair means or foul.
Are we to create a regulatory system that will enable someone to escape what would otherwise be his legitimate liabilities because of some technical mistake, which may have been caused by carelessness? It is a grave mistake to make something totally unenforceable. One should leave it to the discretion of the court so that the citizen who is trading, if he is in the wrong, can at least fall back on the court's discretion without fetter.
A 228-page Bill covers this area, as do mountains of useful paperwork produced by the authority in consultation, regulation and technical books. The one that I have had the pleasure of reading was written in part by a lawyer who has given us a great deal of help. It amounts to 400 pages of detail that could not possibly be read by anyone who is not merely a lawyer, but a lawyer specialising in the field. It simply could not be understood by anybody else.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: rose—

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I give way to the hon. Lady.

Madam Speaker: Order. May I bring the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House back to the procedural motion on the Order Paper? It is interesting to have some of the examples that have been given, but I now ask hon. Members to stay within the motion before us. Given my ruling, does the Hon. Lady still wish to intervene?

Mrs. Ellman: Yes, Madam Speaker.
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that the Bill has involved so much time because detailed consideration is being given to every precise point that Opposition Members, including him, are making?

Does he agree that that is a strength of the Bill and the reason why this procedural motion should be agreed to without much more ado?

Sir Nicholas Lyell: I am most grateful to you, Madam Speaker, and to the hon. Lady for bringing me back to the point. The answer to her question is yes and no. Yes, there has been valuable scrutiny and, without wishing to praise the Opposition too much, we have made and tested some sensible points and shall continue to do so for some months to come. However, it is not too unfair to those with the job, in both the Government and the Financial Services Authority, of getting the Bill into workable order to say that they are still busy consulting and thinking through much of the detail, which, ideally, should have been thought through before the Bill began.
This brings me solidly on to procedural ground, Madam Speaker. Had the Bill been thought through before we started, we would have been far less likely to need a carry-over motion. Such motions should be extremely rare. The Government should be as good as their word and should not table carry-over motions without giving full notice in advance—to be fair, that was given—except when the matter is technical and highly complex or when such a motion is absolutely necessary for proper scrutiny. I take exception, politely, to what the Minister said. Carry-over motions should not be used simply because a Bill was started late in a Session. They should certainly not be used for that reason without agreement behind the scenes.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: As a member of both the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, I welcome both the general proposal and the specific proposal in relation to the Bill.
On the carry-over procedure, the House has an underlying difficulty because those with the power to change procedure are inevitably the Government of the day, while those most in favour of reinforcing the powers of the House are inevitably those who sit on the Opposition Benches. Thus, at any stage of any Parliament, a delicate balancing act must be performed if the House's procedures are to be moved forward constructively. Our carry-over procedure achieves that delicate balance, and will achieve some extra capacity for the House to keep a grip on legislation that the Government put before it.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) made some of my points for me. This is a difficult and complex Bill. The alternative to carrying it forward is not to abandon it, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might hope, but to rush it through in the remaining fortnight of this Session. That is traditionally how Governments have dealt with complex Bills when they have got to the end of their time and the end of the Session.
This motion enables us to give complex Bills proper consideration right the way through, and thereby improve them. I am a new Member and, like every inhabitant of the United Kingdom, I have been subject to the laws of the House since the day of my birth—and probably even before that. The laws produced by various Governments and endorsed by the House in various configurations have frequently had serious defects and have had to


be revisited. Those defects have often arisen because proper consideration had not been given to the detail of the Bill. I am sure, Madam Speaker, that you would not want me to illustrate that at great length; it can be taken for granted.
This provision will allow the House to exercise better scrutiny in better time, which it is hoped will produce better outcomes. The Bill has already gone through consultative procedures that are new to the House and to the other place, and they have produced improvements. More improvements can be made if we proceed with this motion.
The right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire asked whether the carry-over procedure should become more widely used. I hope that it will be more widely used. Legislation is sometimes rushed and fumbled, because our legislative cycle inevitably compresses the consideration of detail into the end of the parliamentary Session when we are least able to manage it. If we were rational, not only would we have an announcement in the Queen's Speech of the Bills that the Government propose to introduce during the Session, but we would be given the order in which they would be introduced so that the work on those Bills could proceed in an orderly and thorough way through the procedures of the House. Inevitably, Bills introduced in the second half of the Session might require the carry-over procedure.

Mr. Graham Brady: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that another rational approach would be to introduce fewer Bills, thus allowing the House of Commons to do its job more effectively all the time, not just when carry-over is permitted?

Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman may have a point that fewer and better laws would be good for everyone, and perhaps our summer recesses would be even longer. However, given the complexity of our modern society, every successive Government since the war has introduced more Bills than their predecessor, regardless of their political complexion. I do not foresee that changing unless we get a legislative benefit from devolution, but I shall not hold my breath on that. Although it is a nice wish, it is not a realistic proposition.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that there is a benefit in the House of Commons having a limited time to examine legislation? In other legislatures, including the so-called European Parliament, which do not have that discipline, consideration of legislation goes on for ever, and they often do not have the ability to take legislation off the books when it manifestly should not be proceeded with, and when any sane person would say that it should be dropped. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is a benefit in the House of Commons having a set timetable and knowing that at the end of that time it must deal with a Bill?

Mr. Stunell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's intervention, because it enables me to say that the Modernisation Committee considered the point very carefully. That is why the carry-over procedure allows a Bill to be carried over only once, which I consider appropriate.
It has been suggested that if we had had more time, we could have had a shorter Bill. That is along the lines of the observation by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that perhaps we should have fewer laws. In fact, we are not likely to have either fewer or shorter laws in the future. What comes before the House needs to be considered carefully by hon. Members. We may or may not be able to make Bills shorter: I would not want to hold my breath on that. The main point is that output from the House must be good law which is enforceable. That may involve a little extra time and effort, but I believe that that is what we are here for.
I consider the case for carrying over this Bill to be practically overwhelming. It is a complex Bill, and hon. Members have argued that it should have been shorter and simpler—but it is not. It is before us now, and the choice is not good. We can try to get it through in the next fortnight, or we can do as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested and withdraw it completely. The City is anxious for the Bill to be passed. Its regulatory procedures need attention, and the Bill addresses that need. I do not honestly think that the right hon. Gentleman is really signing up to a crooks charter, with the Bill withdrawn and no progress made on the regulation that is required. That cannot be what he intends to achieve.
What we are left with is a perfectly sound procedure for this Bill, which will allow it to be examined properly and returned to the House in good order, with proper discussion. I strongly believe that the House should welcome this opportunity to use the carry-over procedures, and should be happy for this Bill to be the first example of legislation dealt with by that means.

Mr. Eric Forth: I strongly oppose the measure, so I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) indicated his acquiescence to it. I say that for a number of reasons. The first is a matter of principle: I have never accepted the argument that it is desirable for us to find means of allowing more and more legislation to emanate from this place, rather than less legislation, including fewer Bills.
I have never seen this place as a legislation factory. I have always supported procedures making the passage of legislation more difficult rather than easier, because I believe that, although there is an enormous propensity among politicians to produce more legislation in order to justify their existence, it must be in the greater interest of people for there to be fewer Bills. I therefore feel that any measure facilitating an increase in the amount of legislation is counter-productive and undesirable, which is why I was not in favour of the so-called Modernisation Committee's so-called progressive measures to facilitate that.
An important issue has arisen in the context of this motion. It is the first time that it has arisen in the House. The discipline imposed by the one-Session principle that we have employed up until now has always struck me as a good one. Governments should be forced to give proper priority to their measures, and to give greater priority to more important and more complex Bills so that they can be dealt with in the time available. That discipline is about to disappear. If we approve the motion, a major step will


have been taken in the removal of an extremely desirable discipline which we have always—perhaps "enjoyed" would not the right word—imposed on ourselves.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The right hon. Gentleman referred to the discipline of a complex Bill. Few Bills are more complex than the Finance Bill, which comes before us every year. We used frequently to sit throughout the night to discuss it. On Wednesday, we shall be discussing the consequences of the Pepper v. Hart ruling, which occurred at a very awkward time and which arose from the proceedings of the Finance Bill. Decisions were taken, and were subsequently considered. What is most important, however, is that if the pressure of time is there, Committees can meet more frequently. Will this proposal not stop them from meeting more frequently, and sticking to their timetables?
I am in favour of the motion, but I think that it should be used only in exceptional circumstances, rather than being taken into account just because a Committee is rather slow in making decisions and rather leisurely in carrying out its responsibilities.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, whose experience in the House is great and almost unparalleled, for pointing out that, if it were the will of the House to find mechanisms better to examine and to scrutinise Bills, it should be able to find them, rather than take the risks that are inherent in what it is doing. He is the second right hon. Member, following my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), to say, "We will allow it in the case of the Financial Services and Markets Bill, but I hope that it will not happen too often." Both of them have been here long enough to know that that is a pious hope. Having opened the door, the Government are almost certain to want to walk through it ever more frequently. I would never use the word "naive" in the context of right hon. Gentlemen, but it is a triumph of hope over expectation.

Mr. Bercow: Although I naturally endorse and support with enthusiasm the stance of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does my right hon. Friend agree that possibly the real motive behind the carry-over of the Bill is nothing to do with the public interest or the rights of the House, but is the pressing need for Ministers who are not professionally qualified in these important matters to get their minds round the 367 clauses and 228 pages of said Bill?

Mr. Forth: That is entirely possible, but, having had the honour of serving on the Committee, I would hesitate to make that judgment. All I would say in the context of the comments of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is that, if I may point it out to the House, I was largely instrumental in guiding a Bill of almost identical size through the House in the 1992–93 Session. It had 350-something clauses and 21 or 22 schedules. We managed to do that. It was, of course, a magnificent Bill. It was virtually flawless. As a result of my guidance through the parliamentary process, it completed its passage on time and without the need of any chicanery of the sort that we are being asked to consider today.
My second reason for opposing the measure is simple: I still cling to that, sadly, apparently diminishing idea that it is the job of Her Majesty's Opposition to oppose, not to connive in the passage of Government legislation. That is why I am still mystified, despite the superb and elucidatory speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells, about why the Conservative Opposition should find themselves conniving with this Government, of all Governments, in the passage of legislation. I cling to the view that Oppositions are here to oppose. I see no reason to overturn that excellent principle, even in the current case. I am not persuaded that it is an exception.
My other reason has been touched on by one or two hon. Members. One of the most undesirable principles in the House is of all-party, or consensually agreed, legislation. Over many years, some of the worst measures that have emanated from this place have been agreed by all parties and driven by consensus. I am sure that the list is familiar to right hon. and hon. Members, so I will not repeat it, but it makes me rather uneasy when I am told in emollient tones, "Do not worry, we have all agreed to the measure."
The Liberal Democrats apparently agreed to it, somewhat to my surprise. My right hon. and hon. Friends agreed to it and the Government want it. That would be bad enough, but another reason has been given to the House—it has been mentioned a couple of times: the City wants the Bill, so it must be rushed on its way.
Usually, if we are told that an outside interest group wants legislation, that makes us more than a little nervous and suspicious. In other circumstances and cases, I would be suspicious if I were told that a powerful interest group was anxious to have legislation. That would make my antennae tremble more than usual and I would want to know why. In this case, however, we are being told by hon. Members on both sides of the House that the City is very anxious to have the legislation—with the implication that the House should hurry its proceedings, to ensure that the City is pleased by having the legislation in place as soon as possible.

Mr. Tyrie: I am very sympathetic to the argument being made by my right hon. Friend. However, on the point that he is now pursuing, I think that he is slightly off-beam. The City is very keen to have certainty—any type of certainty will do—rather than the uncertainty of being caught between two loads of legislation. The City is dead scared of the Bill—it thinks that it is a ghastly leviathan—and would rather it had never been introduced in the House. That strongly supports my right hon. Friend's argument that there should have been a much longer, more careful and thoughtful process before such comprehensive legislation was introduced to replace current regulations.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. If he has accurately summarised the rationale behind the City's argument on the legislation, I am even less impressed with the City. If the City is saying, "This is a rotten piece of legislation and we fear it greatly, because we think it might damage us—but, please, may we have it quickly, because it is better than uncertainty", I am not very impressed with it.
I think that probably all hon. Members have today received a document appealingly headed "Justice in Financial Services". It was sent to us by a man—whom I


do not know personally—named J. R. S. Egerton. He makes some interesting assertions in his letter, dated 21 October. He states:
The Financial Services and Markets Bill has been condemned by the City editor of the Evening Standard as the greatest threat to individual liberty and the rule of law for a generation.
I am not familiar with the views of the Evening Standard's City editor on the Bill, but can assume only that the letter gives a reasonably accurate interpretation of them.
The letter goes on to say that the Bill's
excesses have been denounced by the Times and the Telegraph and received unfavourable notice in the Financial Times.
I am not suggesting that we should be driven in our legislative deliberations by the press any more than by the City, but if those press experts are making those types of arguments, it seems to be a factor that should be taken into consideration and give us pause before finding ways of hurrying the Bill's passage. As has already been alluded to in the debate, the deliberations of the famous Joint Committee—which has been hailed as such an advance in the legislative process—on the Bill were less than complete.
I have only briefly quoted the two-page letter from the Justice in Financial Services organisation. I do not know that body or its provenance, but am simply trying to make the point that there are different points of view on the matter—rather than the cosy apparent unanimity that was in danger of emerging before I managed to catch your eye, Madam Speaker.
It simply is not good enough for us to be told that we should pass an exceptional motion to give the Bill a second wind and further consideration, overturning all the House's previous tradition, because the Bill is large and complex and was introduced too late in the Session. Such a move makes me uneasy. I am not persuaded that the Bill is an exception—I do not think that there should be any exceptions.
Nevertheless, let us not use the motion as a first example of what I fear will become much more normal than my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire and the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne have said. I should perhaps defer to them, as they have been Members longer than I have, but do not share their confidence—if that is the right word—that such motions will be a rare exception or one-off.
I suspect that, in future, the motion will be used by the Government as a precedent. I hope that the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells reflect much more accurately the position that the Opposition will take in future. Even if we have been persuaded, or conned, to go along with the motion on this occasion, I hope that we will learn a lesson from it. If the House—in my view mistakenly—gives its go-ahead to the motion today, I hope that it will be the last time that we approve such motions, and that we will not see its like again.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: There are two issues relating to the suspension motion that need to be considered: the points of constitutional principle and parliamentary procedure to which my right hon. Friend

the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) referred; and the reasons why the suspension motion should be applied to the Bill. I should like to say a few words about both issues, more on the latter than on the former.
I am sympathetic to the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst on constitutional principle and was almost completely persuaded by them. A carry-over sounds nice in theory, but it hands a good deal of further power to the Executive. The power of delay is almost all that the Opposition have and I was flabbergasted to hear the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who will undoubtedly be in opposition all his life, saying that its use should be further curtailed.
The relationship between the delaying power of the House of Lords and the carry-over provisions has not been mentioned so far. In certain circumstances, there is a risk that its power of delay could be eroded. That is set out clearly in a note prepared by the Clerks in the third report of the Modernisation Committee. The crucial two sentences say:
But if such a Bill were sent to the Lords late in the Session, with the intention of its being carried over, the Lords would have inadequate time to give it proper consideration. Nonetheless, the Parliament Act provisions could, legally, be applied by the Commons in the ensuing Session.
In other words, in those circumstances the key power of delay—perhaps the only major power left in the hands of the Lords after the Parliament Act 1911—would be greatly eroded.
In their desire to assist the Modernisation Committee with their support for the idea, the Clerks suggest some possible safeguards to deal with that further erosion of Lords power. Those safeguards are not well thought out and I should like the Government to come forward at the earliest opportunity with their proposals on how the House of Lords power of delay can be thoroughly safeguarded if, as the Minister said a moment ago, carry-over provisions are to become more common.
My second point relates to the Bill. We are not debating the general issue of whether carry-over provisions should be permitted. We are considering the specific issue of whether the Financial Services and Markets Bill should be subject to the provisions. That depends on two points. First, it was understood between the usual channels that there should be general agreement across the House for the Bill being carried over. Secondly, the circumstances of the Bill and the progress made on it should be relevant to the decision.
The Bill underwent pre-legislative scrutiny from a Joint Committee to enable a consensus to be developed. However, I am not convinced that the Government have stuck to their side of the bargain in delivering responsiveness and flexibility to proposals that have been made. They have not responded favourably to the proposals of the Burns Committee, and they have not shown much flexibility towards Opposition proposals in Committee. In fact we have had a mixed reaction to the Burns Committee proposals, to which I shall refer in a moment.
I wish to raise some general points on which little flexibility has been shown. First, everyone agrees that the Bill is creating a leviathan—a huge and extremely powerful body such as we have not seen in Britain before.


The Government have put in insufficient checks and balances on the authority, and on its power. Secondly, a tendency to err on the side of reducing risk for the regulator at the expense of the industry pervades the Bill, and thirdly, little attention has been given to the need to make the Bill flexible to take account of changing market conditions.
It is worse than that. We need a review procedure so that, every few years, we can come back to the Bill to see how it ought to be amended. However, we have the opposite. We have clauses enabling the Treasury to institute reviews—and to make them independent—if it feels like it, or not if it does not. Indeed, the Bill states that independence itself will be defined by the Treasury.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): indicated dissent.

Mr. Tyrie: The Minister shakes her head, but that is clearly the case. I urge her to read clause 10 and, if she has done so, to explain where I have got it wrong.
On the leviathan point, we must remove the FSA's immunity from prosecution. I will not elaborate that point, as now is not the time to do so. However, there must be some consideration of that matter. There must be further consideration also of the need to strengthen the tribunal procedure.

Mr. Stunell: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the very weaknesses that he outlines are the justification for this House accepting the carry-over, so that we can improve the Bill? Is this not a case of strengthening the hand of the House against the Government and not weakening it, as he suggested?

Mr. Tyrie: It is extraordinary to suggest that we should allow the Government whatever timetable they want, and that, by doing so, we will always strengthen and improve Bills. If we use this procedure, we must at least make ad hoc assessments of whether there has been flexibility and whether the Bill has been improved. That is what we are doing today. We must also look at the progress that is being made on the Bill to make a judgment on whether to support the motion.
To return to the leviathan, there has been some progress—but by no means enough—on the tribunal procedure, in response to the Burns Committee. We should have an opportunity to debate that in Committee shortly, and I hope that the Government will show flexibility. On over-regulation, the Bill must include the objectives of competition and competitiveness to counterbalance the other objectives. The former are not included in the Bill as an objective, but as a justiciably weaker "principle", and that is unacceptable.
On the huge enabling powers given to the Treasury—including the power to make further legislation by order—we must have a commitment to regular, thoroughgoing reviews.

Mr. Forth: Does my hon. Friend think that if we agree the motion today and allow the Government more time, the chances of what he thinks should happen to the Bill being accepted will be improved or diminished?

Mr. Tyrie: That judgment hangs on a knife edge. I am concerned that my right hon. Friend may be right and there may be less flexibility. I said earlier that I was well on the way to being persuaded by his argument.
Everyone in the City to whom I have spoken agrees with the three points about creating a leviathan, over-regulation and the excessive enabling powers and inadequacy of review; but people in the City are too scared to speak up—as they have been prepared to say privately, at length—because they have been cowed by the powers of the FSA, the fear of investigations and the size of Labour's majority, as they know that they will have to carry on working with Labour, although we hope that before long that will no longer be the case.

Mr. Nigel Beard: It is not the universal view of the City that there will be a leviathan. There is a widespread view that, having had nine different regulators operating different codes, it is time to sort out the confusion. The Bill has been widely welcomed, as has the flexibility that has been built in by leaving regulations to secondary legislation. On both those points, the hon. Gentleman's comments are inaccurate; and they have been debated on several earlier occasions.

Mr. Tyrie: Yes, and I am sure that they will be debated again. I would be fascinated to see evidence from anyone in a position of influence in the City who is prepared to say in writing that this Bill is creating the opposite of a leviathan: a tame creature that will show the flexibility that the City wants. That is inconceivable; but there is an element of truth in the hon. Gentleman's point that the mishmash of regulation that is being replaced needed attention. I am not suggesting that it has been easy to regulate in this area: it has been very difficult, and the previous Government made mistakes in the mid-1980s, as I have been the first to concede.
We are straying off the main issues, and I do not want to get into what could, if we are not careful, become a Second Reading debate. The crucial point is that Conservative Members agreed to go ahead with the suspension order on the general understanding, some months ago, that the Government would show flexibility towards the recommendations of the Burns Committee. An assessment of how far that flexibility has been forthcoming is crucial to the judgment whether we should go ahead with the suspension.
I commissioned a study of that and I have had a good look at the question myself. I shall not list the 20 or 30 areas in which the Government failed to respond to the Burns Committee, but I will mention a few major areas in which they have given an inadequate response or ruled out the Committee's proposals.
Paragraph 45 of the Burns Committee report recommends that the market confidence objective in the Bill
should be expanded to include a reference to the management of systemic risk".
There is a memorandum of understanding between the FSA, the Bank of England and the Treasury on the matter, but it is a pretty feeble document which has not been adequately considered in Committee.
We are debating the fundamental question whether, in its present form, there might be an increased risk of the banking system collapsing under stress as a result of changes in the rules and the way in which we interpret them. The Government's response that all the


Committee's concerns had already been met, but that they would continue to reflect on the issues, was inadequate and feeble.
In paragraph 98, the Burns Committee recommended a review of the challenges posed by communications and technology—e-commerce—and the Government's response was that that was not thought necessary: as simple as that. Paragraph 113 also recommended that the chairmanship and the post of chief executive of the FSA should be separated, to provide a quasi-constitutional check on the huge powers given to the first chairman and chief executive. The Government decided that they were content with the present arrangements.
An issue pertinent to the House was raised by the Burns Committee in paragraph 122 of its report, when it said that there should be parliamentary confirmation hearings for the FSA chairman and chief executive appointments. That was dismissed by the Government as undesirable, so we shall probably not have any confirmation hearings.
Paragraph 133 of the Burns report raised the issue of whether the FSA should be required to consult the consumer and practitioner panels and to publicise their disagreements. The Government decided that there should be no requirement to consult.
There is also the issue of compensation awards. In paragraph 146 of the Burns report the Government were asked to consider allowing the investigator to award compensation or allowing the FSA to make ex gratia payments. That was dismissed out of hand.
There are 20 more recommendations to which I could refer, but I think that I have dealt with quite enough of these matters. I think that those to which I have referred give a feel of the extent to which the Burns Committee recommendations have been ignored. As I have said, the principle that lies behind the Opposition's acceptance of the motion hinges on whether joint consultations yield fruit in terms of the Government's being responsive to our proposals and those of the Joint Committee. We have not seen enough of either.
I am worried about the suspension order. The Bill is of very mixed quality and I am not convinced that, by carrying it over, we shall improve its quality. We have seen the Government's relative unresponsiveness to proposals to try to make it better. My inclination would be to argue that that unresponsiveness is close to being a breach, if it is not an actual breach, of the agreement that was reached through the usual channels about the use of suspension orders.
My colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench are all gentlemen. I think that, if there were a Division, they would honour the deal. I think that, on balance, they have decided not to break the agreement. With some reluctance, I shall go along with their judgment. However, that still leaves me with my constitutional objections in principle to this procedure. I believe that it increases the power of the Executive and puts at risk one of the very few powers that the House of Lords possesses.
I am a member of the Committee that is considering the Financial Services and Markets Bill, and, in thinking through these constitutional issues, I am left deeply sceptical about the carry-over provisions. If the Government had shown more flexibility in this case, I might have been more inclined to be supportive of the process generally.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker and to those on both Front Benches for not being present to hear the opening speeches. I remark in passing that the manner in which the Government are conducting the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill—the amendments to it are approaching 500—within a month of the Queen's Speech is putting a bit of a strain on London Members, and it was that Bill which kept me out of the Chamber. I shall return to that Bill in my brief remarks.
I declare an interest as chairman of the Building Societies Ombudsman Council, which is obviously affected by the Financial Services and Markets Bill. Given my role as chairman of the council, I have deliberately not spoken on the Bill up to now. I shall speak only on the principle of the carry-over. I declare a further interest as I am the Member responsible for the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill, a private measure which is subject to a somewhat different procedural climate, but is in the same area.
I entered the Chamber to hear my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) advance a powerful argument for exceptionality, with which I wholly agree. I disagreed with the speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), though he and I both have some mutual sympathy with each other. We both sat through the debate on procedure last Thursday in our respective capacities without either of us being called. We are veterans of different campaigns. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman's argument that this procedure should be used more often rather than less. As so often, I agree with the general thrust of the remarks by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). The Greater London Authority Bill—we both served on its Committee and, as he will remember, occasionally disagreed during that time—has had some 500 amendments tabled to it in the House of Lords, mainly by the Government, and that will set this House a considerable task between now and the Queen's Speech for obvious reasons. The House of Lords has not even reached Third Reading yet.
One could argue, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove might do so, that the Greater London Authority Bill would therefore be a good candidate for a carry-over, in the interests of good legislation. However, it left Committee in this House at the end of March and it is extraordinary that it is still at Report stage in the House of Lords at the end of October. If the pressure on Governments to attend to the details of their Bills is lifted in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests, we would soon get in a pretty pickle. It would not be good if the procedure became less exceptional.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the safeguard that the procedure can be used only if those on the two Front Benches agree is sufficient to prevent the situation that he rightly warns against?

Mr. Brooke: My right hon. and learned Friend, with salient perception, has anticipated a point that I intended to make later. I am grateful to him for having provided a trailer and harbinger of my later remarks. It would be a bad habit to carry over several technical Bills into another Session. Professor Parkinson's great law that work expands to fill the time available is a classic example why the procedure should be restricted, not open-ended.
I also disagree with the hon. Member for Hazel Grove about this House's historic practice on technical Bills. I agree that procedure may have to be hurried at the end, but it is not my experience in 22 years—the experience of the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) is even longer—that time cannot be found for, for example, the Finance Bill, provided that people think in advance about how much time will be needed.
The Greater London Authority Bill would certainly qualify as large and complex, but it would not satisfy the requirement that notice must be given. The point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire about agreement is a critical element of the safeguards against the misuse of the carry-over procedure. If the Government cannot secure agreement that carry-over is appropriate, a Bill cannot undergo the procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is an eloquent advocate, but sometimes I find when I listen carefully to his speeches that if there are five points that relate to an argument, he—like the writers of some editorials—covers the first four but does not include the fifth. On this occasion, I did not hear him deal with the issue that agreement between both sides of the House is a definitive way to ensure that too many Bills are not subjected to the procedure.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for allowing me to fill the lacuna. It may be that my right hon. Friend, with his infinite courtesy and consideration, has total trust in and admiration for our Front-Bench colleagues. I do not.

Mr. Brooke: That is a highly pertinent observation for my right hon. Friend to have made. However, he will recognise—and I mean it in the nicest possible way—that the view that he has just expressed does not wholly surprise me.
I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst assert that the Minister had said that he expected the carry-over procedure to be used more often. As I was not in the Chamber at the time, I did not hear the ipsissima verba that the Minister used, or the reasons that he gave for putting forward that view. I apologise for missing those reasons and I hope that the Economic Secretary—who I take it will wind up the debate and whom I congratulate on her promotion to the Front Bench—will explain why there will be more use of the carry-over procedure in the future. I share with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire, and with the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne, a feeling that the use of that procedure should be exceptional. I sincerely hope that history will not find any of the three of us naive for having taken that view.

Mr. Tim Loughton: I, too, must apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not being present for all the debate, although I was able to catch the opening speeches. However, I had a meeting with a Home Office Minister about a constituency case that has occupied me for some three years. That meeting was arranged a long time ago: I was loth to miss it, and I hope that I have been able to achieve some success in the matter involved.
In contributing my few pennyworth to this debate, I wish to declare the interests set down in my name in the Register of Members' Interests. A handful of hon. Members in the Chamber today have lived, breathed and slept the Financial Services and Markets Bill since we were made members of the Burns Committee last September. The last thing that I want, having gone through that experience, is to have to start considering the Bill all over again because its carry-over has not been allowed.
However, the carry-over of the Bill should not be let through on the nod. If the carry-over is agreed to, it must be made absolutely clear that the Opposition are helping the Government off a hook of their own making. The Bill is very important. The City needs it, as does the financial services industry. Indeed, one could also say that the Labour party needs it: before we started considering the Bill, the present Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, when she was Economic Secretary, said that part of the process of creating new Labour was to change Labour's attitudes to the City.
The Bill has dragged on too long already, through a very sensitive period for the financial markets. Those markets could have been affected by matters such the Y2K problem and the introduction of the euro, and by big changes to capital gains tax and the savings industry. The interregnum in regulation that has existed since last year's Bank of England Act has not helped anyone.
The City wants and needs a Bill that is workable and practical, and will help it and the financial services industry to get on with their jobs. I am afraid that this Bill—as it stands now, but even more so in its original form—does not provide that help to our satisfaction. Labour Members should worry about that, given that the industry accounts for 7 per cent. of the country's gross domestic product and, directly and indirectly, employs more than a million people.
It is the Government's fault that we are here today. The Bill has an unhappy history. It was sneaked out in July last year, on the last day before the long summer recess, in a heavily flawed form. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), I was privileged to serve on the Burns Committee. That Committee did an excellent job, and Lord Burns deserves the congratulations that he has received. However, to a great degree, that Committee got the Government off the hook. The Government did not admit that the original Bill was heavily flawed: instead, they transferred responsibility for sorting out the mess to a new and innovative Joint Committee.
I believe that the Joint Scrutiny Committee did a good job and that it has a role to play in connection with exceptional pieces of future legislation—those highly technical and detailed Bills to whose consideration expert witnesses may contribute.
The time constraints imposed on the Burns Committee were crazy—two months for the first report, and rather less than four weeks for the second, on market abuse. The Committee was able practically to consider only six subjects during that time—statutory objectives, scope, accountability arrangements, discipline arrangements, market abuse and the ombudsman.
The whole consultation period for the Bill has been highly haphazard. The Treasury and the Financial Services Authority have prided themselves on pushing out


a lot of purple consultation documents. When the Joint Committee began to consider the legislation in detail, 20 or so documents had been published. Only one of them had received a response from the Government. We were flailing around in the dark. The Government had not decided how to respond to their own consultation exercise responses. That was highly unsatisfactory. Both the Joint Committee and the Standing Committee have had to tease out the Government's position. In many cases, it has become blatantly clear that the Government do not know their position and can give us no time scale within which they will know it.
Unhappily—I mean no detriment to the two Ministers present—there have been three Ministers since the draft Bill was launched. There have been two Ministers since the final Bill came before the Committee. The team of three Treasury junior Ministers has changed completely over the summer. I wish the new Ministers well, but that changeover cannot be helpful. Part of the job of the previous Economic Secretary to the Treasury—I dare say she did it well—was to roll up her sleeves and become involved in the consultation exercise. Many people went in and out of her office, although perhaps not as many from the sharp end—the practitioners—as we should have liked. However, the substitution of a new set of Ministers who were not part of the consultation process weakens that process. The change is bad for continuity.
Now that the House has returned from the summer recess, the Standing Committee has begun to study the Bill. I am unhappy to hear that the Treasury door was not very open—if open at all—to practitioners during the three months of the summer recess. That is unsatisfactory when we are faced with a highly technical—and very long—Bill. Following the year between publication of the draft and final Bills, the Government have had a further three-month breathing space during the summer, and it is worrying that the situation seems not to be improving. The revised Bill remains full of flaws.
The Government are still not ready with many of their amendments. One need only read the Standing Committee Hansard to confirm that. Every week, announcements come that seem to conflict with previous pronouncements. Last week, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury said that there would be a system of light-touch regulation for non-financial service firms, which raised questions about where the dividing line is drawn for financial firms. The Government are applying varying standards to different companies and altering their interpretation of rules over time. Many questions have been raised over the even-handedness of the Bill's approach. All that should have been worked out months, if not years, ago, but it was announced to us only last week.
Hansard shows time and again that the Government are not ready. The Government say:
We therefore propose to table amendments aligning financial promotion".
Again, they say:
We will table amendments to this effect in due course.
And, again, they say:
We therefore propose to introduce amendments".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 19 October 1999; c. 422.]
Those statements come from just one column of one Hansard from last week. Sixteen months after they published the draft Bill, and four months after publication

of the final Bill, the Government are not able to table proper amendments for the Committee to discuss. That means that, when those amendments are eventually forthcoming—presumably on Report—they will not have been subject to the same degree of scrutiny in Committee that one would have expected for the Bill, and that certainly should have occurred. That is most worrying.
The overriding concern is that running through the Bill are—as one newspaper expressed it—the threads of a disease that has become endemic to legislation under the Labour Government: the reserve power. When the Bill is eventually enacted, it will allow the Government to change the rules without bothering with legislation in many cases. The Treasury will decide which activities will or will not be regulated by the Bill, what financial information will or will not be allowed, and so on. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) mentioned, the Government are creating an enormous leviathan without first defining its terms of remit.
I want to flag up a few concerns. How on earth can the Government proceed to create an authority that has statutory immunity, sold to us on the rather flimsy excuses of what happened back in 1986 and on what may or may not happen in the United States, without the counter-balance of an independent inspector with the power to award compensation? That is a major issue which should have been resolved some time ago, but has not been.
The timing under the Bill of the competition objective principle that we should like to see is extraordinary—[Interruption.]—Labour Members do not seem to want to touch on those facts. During the same week that we were faced with that matter in Standing Committee, Mr. Cruickshank—who had been appointed by the Government to look into competitive practices in the banking industry—produced a draft report. We are expecting the full report later on this year. That draft report quite clearly conflicted with what we had been led to believe the Government were trying to achieve in the Bill. Therein lies an absurdity: if the Chancellor is to accept the terms of that report—if the draft becomes the full report later in the year—there will be a conflict of interest with what we are trying to debate in Committee as to the terms of competitive practices in the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester referred to market abuse clauses; they have still to be dealt with. However, the whole problem of conflict with the European convention on human rights, to which the attention of the Burns Committee was drawn, has still not been resolved. I am not aware that any progress has been made.

Mr. Beard: Is it not true that all these questions—the tribunal, the conflict with the European convention on human rights and all the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman—have actually been resolved, but not in the way that he would have preferred?

Mr. Loughton: If only that were so. The hon. Gentleman who, like me, served on the Standing Committee and the Joint Committee, should re-check the Burns report and the subsequent amendments to the Bill. He knows full well that those questions have not been resolved. The Bill remains wide open to be taken to the European Court for abuse of the ECHR. There have


certainly been some improvements in respect of legal aid and the non-use of incriminating statements but, as the Treasury's own solicitors said, when they accompanied the then Economic Secretary, now the Minister for Small Business and E-Commerce, to give evidence to the Burns Committee on market abuse, they simply cannot be certain.
The Burns Committee heard extremely learned judgments from legal experts that threw serious doubt on the compatibility of the Bill with the ECHR. If the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr. Beard) studies the text of the report again, he will acknowledge that. By no means is the Bill in the clear.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not want to descend into too much discussion of major items in the Bill. Madam Speaker has already ruled that there can be allusion to particular points in the Bill, but we cannot have a Second Reading debate. We are debating a procedure motion.

Mr. Loughton: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall conclude my comments. Without going into the ins and outs of certain clauses, I merely wanted to illustrate my argument as to the timing of our scrutiny of the Bill. We are expected to scrutinise legislation which the Government have not yet formulated properly. That process relies on our good will in believing that the Government will table amendments on Report. Unless the Report stage is extremely long, those amendments will not receive the scrutiny that they deserve. Without returning to specifics, I emphasise that important issues have yet to be resolved.
The Bill has so far had a bad passage. Its progress has been greatly assisted by Lord Burns and his Committee coming to the Government's rescue after the Government launched a rather ill-drafted Bill in July 1998. Let the Government be in no doubt: if the Opposition agree to the carry-over, it will be because we put the needs of the financial services industry—which desperately needs the Bill—first; and because of the threat that, if the carry-over were not to pass, the Government would impose a guillotine to push through the legislation in the new Session, regardless of the detailed scrutiny that such a Bill requires.
I hope that, if the Opposition go along with the Government's proposal today, Ministers will shape up and become more responsive to the practical concerns that we have raised on behalf of many experts in the financial services industry and that, as the Bill progresses through Standing Committee, they will adopt many of the suggestions that we have tabled in the form of practical amendments to the Bill. Let us not forget that, of the 367 clauses, the Committee has reached only clause 52. In the renewed spirit of co-operation, I hope that the Government will be able to redeem themselves in the remaining weeks and months of the Bill's passage, both before and after the Queen's Speech.

Mr. Howard Flight: I share the dislike of a carry-over and the precedent that it sets. As the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) stated, a

carry-over removes the discipline of a timetable and creates a precedent that may be abused in respect of other legislation.
I accept the carry-over of the Financial Services and Markets Bill on good faith: the Opposition agreed to carry over the Bill, subject to the Government's publishing it promptly, which they did, and subject to the Government's following the recommendations of, and resolving the issues raised by, the Burns Committee. I hope that Ministers will tell the House this evening that they will address the outstanding issues raised by the Burns Committee.
As my colleagues have pointed out, there is no practical alternative to the carry-over. Many drafting problems have been discovered in the Bill and the Government are to table an enormous volume of new clauses and amendments to the Bill on Report. The imposition of a guillotine now would be against the interests of consumers, the industry and the country. From a practical perspective, all of us are forced to agree that there is little choice but to carry over the Bill. Incidentally, I should declare an interest as set out in the Register of Members' Interests.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, said that the Bill was supported by the City; in fact, the Bill is by no means supported in its entirety by the City. The financial services industry, quite correctly, accepted the majority by which the Labour Government were elected and their right to legislate as set out in their manifesto. The industry desperately wants the law to be completed, because it is unsatisfactory that the Financial Services Authority is operating without statutory cover. However, the industry—by which I mean not just the City, but the industry throughout the country and the hundreds of thousands who work in it—is not content with many aspects of the Bill as it stands.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) noted that the Bill does not address the conflict with the European convention on human rights, and that there is a substantial body of legal opinion that the Bill remains defective.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell) pointed out that, as a framework Bill, it is far too long. The framework should have been dealt with in 50 pages. My right hon. and learned Friend and others drew attention to the importance of making competition an objective of the Bill. My right hon. and learned Friend also observed that better law is often made by leaving certain issues to the discretion of the courts, rather than by seeking to regulate for every situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) covered some key points not referred to by others. He said that the Bill has not fully addressed the Burns Committee recommendations with regard to systemic risk—a matter on which none other than the head of the United States Federal Reserve has been critical of the proposals in the Bill. The Bill has not dealt with the proposals that there should be confirmatory hearings by the House of Commons on the appointment of the Financial Services Authority's chief executive, or the requirement for the FSA to consult consumer panels.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) expressed the very human desire for the carry-over, to avoid having to go over the


same ground again. He made some sound practical points, and observed that it is substantially the Government's fault that this debate is taking place.
My hon. Friend reminded us that there are about 1 million people working in the financial services industry, representing 7 per cent. of our national product, and thus of the importance of getting the legislation right. He pointed out that part of the problem has been the extraordinary succession of new Ministers being required to get their minds around such a complicated Bill.
With regard to the Burns Committee recommendations, we believe that there are important areas in which the Government have not followed the deal—perhaps they intend to do so in a different way. The Burns Committee advised that the complaints investigator should be entirely independent of the FSA and should have the ability to award damages. It also recommended that individuals should be able to defend themselves under the European convention on human rights against serious regulatory offences. The body of legal opinion has made it clear that that goes well beyond the market abuse offences.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: What has that to do with the motion?

Mr. Flight: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I suggest to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) that he does not provoke.

Mr. Flight: This has everything to do with the motion. There was conditional agreement between the Opposition and the Government, and the Opposition wish to honour that in good faith. I repeat that we agreed to the roll-over on the understanding that the Government would follow the Burns Committee, so it is of great relevance to the House to know and understand where the Government have not followed the Committee's recommendations. I hope that, when the Minister winds up, she will be able to give the House comfort, and say that the Government intend to follow the recommendations of the Burns Committee.

Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend saying that he will recommend that Conservative Members support the motion only if he receives the assurances for which he is asking from the Government and that, by implication, we will not support it if we do not receive those undertakings? I gather that that is what he is saying. Will he confirm that?

Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. Friend. I have made two points: one concerns the Opposition behaving honourably—something that we should do—and the other is that there is no choice but to agree a roll-over. Although the Bill is in need of substantial further correction, we do not have the time to do that and the alternative is that a measure that would seriously damage the livelihoods of 1 million people might be enacted. However, I look to the Government to give the assurances that they will honour the basis on which we agreed to the roll-over and

that they intend to address the outstanding issues on which the Burns Committee made recommendations where they have not yet done so.

Sir Nicholas Lyell: On the matter of parliamentary convention, which my hon. Friend is dealing with, does he agree that it would be impossible for the Government to take the Bill through the House of Lords in this state? Were the House to vote the motion down, the Bill would fall. However, does it not follow from that that the maintenance of the convention in good faith is absolutely essential and that he is entitled to insist on it?

Mr. Flight: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend, who has brought out the point that I was seeking to make. The Bill is in no state to be guillotined and to go to the House of Lords. Given that 7 per cent. of our economy and the jobs of 1 million people are at risk, any responsible Member of the House would want the Bill to be put into proper shape. It would be irresponsible to take any other stance.
If you will briefly indulge me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall refer to areas on which the Burns Committee was silent, although it invited the Government to come up with proposals. Those are the areas in which the financial services industry itself is looking to the Government to sort out the various problems and to get the legislation right. The Bill attempts to regulate the business of non-UK branches and activities of UK-based businesses.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: This is out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) to excuse me. I do not need sedentary advice from the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) and wish that it would cease.

Mr. Flight: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Briefly, clause 56 not only empowers the FSA to determine remuneration throughout the industry, but could deny a livelihood to the 30,000 senior executives. It is substantially too powerful.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I delicately say that there is a distinction between the rulings given by the previous incumbent of the Chair and those that we have just been given? Perhaps you might clarify the position.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There has been great consistency on the part of incumbents of the Chair. We have said that the substance of the Bill can be referred to when arguments are being made for or against the motion, but the weight of emphasis should be on the procedural aspects.

Mr. Flight: As others have pointed out, there is a major mistake in the proposed regulation of E-commerce.


The Government want to support E-commerce in this country and make Britain a leader in it, but clause 19 will be extremely damaging to the interests of E-commerce.

Mr. Nick Hawkins: rose—

Hon. Members: He has just come in.

Mr. Hawkins: I must apologise to my hon. Friend. Although I have not been in the Chamber, I have watched a great deal of the debate in my office between meetings.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The only way in which an hon. Member can truly participate in debates in this House is by being here.

Mr. Flight: The Government have not yet demonstrated that they are keeping their side of the bargain and following the Burns Committee recommendations on certain key issues. Neither have they, by further consultation or in their proposals, responded to several key issues of widespread concern to the many people who work in the industry. We look to the Government this evening to give us comfort on those issues.
I wish to make it clear that we support this carry-over motion in the interests of common sense and of the industry, where there is little alternative.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I shall endeavour to stick to your recent injunction, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to keep to the procedural points as closely as I can, rather than stray down the path of dealing with the substance of the Bill.
After this Government came to power, we announced that the existing patchwork of financial regulators—nine in total—would be replaced by a single statutory regulator, subsequently named the Financial Services Authority. This Bill is a prime example of the Government's aim to reform and modernise Britain. It responds to the changing face of the financial services industry, brings a fair deal to both consumers and providers, and reduces the current scope for duplication and inconsistencies.
As many hon. Members have said, the Bill is complex. However, it will bring a range of positive benefits, which are pro market confidence, pro consumer protection, pro consumer awareness and anti financial crime. It will enable the FSA to be tough on City crime, malpractice and abuse, including insider dealing, rogue trading, money laundering and market manipulation, and will give the FSA wide powers to deal with those unacceptable activities. In giving the FSA a coherent set of modern regulatory powers, it constitutes a thorough and necessary overhaul of the relevant part of the statute book. That is a major task, which is why the Bill is so complex. It is a task that this Government have not shirked and on which we have been determined to consult fully. We therefore listened to and responded to the views of many individuals, institutions and groups.
Opposition Members disagree among themselves about what their response should be to the Bill, the City and this carry-over motion. This evening's debate has reflected their disagreement. We have, however, heard some voices of sanity from those who wish to honour their

commitment to allow the Bill to proceed through this carry-over motion. They recognise that the Bill is extremely important and will bring substantial benefits to the financial services industry and its regulation in the UK, and therefore to the future of the global industry. It will also bring substantial benefits to consumers.

Mr. Hawkins: Will the Minister give way?

Miss Johnson: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just arrived in the Chamber.
I shall deal with some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). I had some sympathy with his interest in the detail of this matter, but I sometimes felt as though I had already arrived in Standing Committee A, which will discuss the Bill tomorrow. The right hon. and learned Gentleman made a point about how much the Bill had been thought through beforehand. That needs to be addressed time and again. The purpose of the revised procedure, which the House supported, is that it enables us to produce better legislation by putting complicated Bills through the draft Bill procedure. At least two Opposition Members who are present today were members of the Joint Committee that looked at the draft Bill. That Committee arrived at its conclusions unanimously. That shows that consultation and discussion can bring about further improvements to legislation, which is why we have gone through this part of the process.

Mr. Loughton: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Johnson: No, not at this point. I may give way later.
The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) suggested that there should be fewer Bills, so that they could be better scrutinised. The Bill has made slow progress because it is receiving such detailed scrutiny. Until the summer recess, the rate of progress was 19 or 20 clauses in 11 sittings. I am not criticising that rate of progress: I am merely pointing out that it is an important Bill and that some clauses require more detailed scrutiny than others. Consequently, we shall not make it through 367 clauses, and I have considerable sympathy with those who say that it would not be a good thing were the Bill to be guillotined.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) believes that there should be fewer Bills. He put that maxim into practice—although not with the popular consequences that he foresaw in this case—when he killed the private Member's Bill to ban fur farming. His actions did not have the public support and acclamation that he thinks that principle should receive.
The right hon. Gentleman is seriously at odds with his Front-Bench colleagues on this Bill. He believes that they are conniving with the Government. It is sad that Opposition Members who are working to try to improve a Bill—often in opposition to the Government, but not always—are seen as conniving with the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman also attacked the City, which is extraordinary, and shows another dimension to the odd views expressed by Conservative Members. Let me make


it plain to the House that we have had much support from the City on this Bill. The British Bankers Association said that the
introduction of a single legislative framework for the financial services industry in the UK is welcome, as is the creation of a single industry regulator.
The Independent Financial Advisers Association said that it
broadly welcomes the objectives and provisions … fully support the objective of bringing all financial regulation under the control of a single authority.
From a different point of view, the Consumers Association said:
We are certainly enthusiastic about the Bill and we see a variety of advantages in having a single regulator".
It is a complicated task, and no one would deny that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton—under—Lyne (Mr. Sheldon) asked whether this is an exceptional arrangement, and it is worth while addressing that issue. The agreement with the Opposition is that consideration will be given on a one-by-one basis. An individual Bill will be considered for carry-over if it has been agreed beforehand that that procedure could apply, and if the Bill is still before that House at the end of the Session. Those conditions will not vary: they are safeguards built into the carry-over provision. If we do not stick to them, there would be difficulties. However, there is no danger of our not sticking to the provisions that have already been made with the agreement of both sides of the House.

Mr. Brooke: I understand that, and it is common cause between certain Conservative Members and the Minister that that is the case. However, I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he thought this procedure would be used more often. I asked him to explain why that should be.

Miss Johnson: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to emphasise that we shall consider each Bill one by one. That is the correct way to make a decision on such matters. We should consider how strong the evidence is on an individual Bill. In this instance, the evidence is strongly in favour of putting this Bill through this procedure.
The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who, sadly, is no longer present, referred to the Burns Committee, and our response to amendments. We believe that we have taken on board most of the Committee's points; indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat—Amory) conceded that we had taken on board many, indeed the majority, of those points.

Mr. Loughton: This point arose earlier. The very institution that the Minister cited has also carried out a proper audit of the Burns Committee report vis a vis the Bill—and the Government have taken on board not many, not the majority, but fewer than half of the Committee's proposals. If the Minister was so impressed by the unanimity on the Committee, why did the Government not take on board the majority of its recommendations?

Miss Johnson: We must agree to differ. I believe that we have taken on board the majority of the recommendations.
There is a danger of our losing sight of the fact that the point of a Standing Committee is to enable Bills to be debated in detail, clause by clause. Some Members are apparently tempted to try to do that here today.
We share the enthusiasm of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for ensuring that the Bill reaches the statute book. We agree that its importance should be recognised. I have given the right hon. Gentleman assurances about the way in which the procedure is likely to be used.
There is a dichotomy in the views expressed by Opposition Members. They do not seem to know in which direction they are going. Some seem to believe that consultation is important, and that we have not engaged in that process well enough at times; others believe that consultation has been holding up the process, and want to know why we could not announce the results immediately, so that we could make speedier progress with the Bill. Some consider that the Bill is ill drafted, but the whole point of the new procedure is to enable Bills to be better drafted. This Bill was not ill drafted in the first place, but it has benefited from exactly the kind of discussion in which the House believes. There is no point in our spending hours debating legislation both in Committee and in the Chamber if that does not enable us to make improvements.
Some Opposition Members believe in financial services, and in support for the City—many, I trust—but there are those who do not believe in those things, and who do not believe that the City welcomes the Bill. There are those who think that the carry-over should be opposed regardless, because they do not believe in the carry-over principle, no matter how much damage that would do. There are those who have faith in their Front-Bench Members, and those who do not.
When we have accepted amendments in Committee recently, or have accepted the spirit of amendments, Opposition Members, rather than welcoming that, have criticised us on occasion, saying that it is not good enough and that there will be a longer debate on Report as a result. They cannot have their cake and eat it.

Mr. Keith Simpson: Yes, they can.

Miss Johnson: I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman say that the Opposition are trying to have their cake and eat it. That confirms what I suspected.
The hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) said that the industry was not content. The industry will be even more not content if the Bill is abandoned, rather than being carried over. It is the duty of both sides in the Committee to ensure that we have a good Bill, and we believe that we have a good Bill—although no doubt we shall have a better Bill as a result of the debates that we are likely to have in Committee.
The hon. Gentleman complained about the framework, agreeing with the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Bedfordshire that it should have been tighter; but, whenever the Committee has proposed secondary legislation, Opposition Members have said that they are not happy about that either. We have to be able to address the rest of the Bill in Standing Committee in the detail that it deserves, which cannot happen in this Session.
I will not detain the House further with a list of our improvements and commitments to consider recommendations, to which we will return as the Bill


continues its passage through Parliament. The Bill is bound to provoke a technically complex and wide-ranging debate. It will transform the financial sector for the better. Our policy aims are clear: to create a world-class regulator that operates in a fair, efficient, proportionate and accountable way, combining a light regulatory touch where possible, with better consumer protection where necessary. We need the legislation to pass through as quickly and efficiently as possible, so that the many benefits that I have outlined can be gained. Against that background, I commend the motion to the House.

Question put:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

MR. MIKE HALL and MR. DAVID JAMIESON were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, and MR. ERIC FORTH was appointed Teller for the Noes; but no Member being willing to act as a second Teller for the Noes, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Question agreed to

Ordered,
That the following provisions shall apply to the Financial Services and Markets Bill:

1. Standing Committee A shall report the Bill to the House, so far as then amended, not later than Thursday 11th November.
2. On the report of the Bill to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, further proceedings on the Bill shall be suspended until the next session of Parliament.
3. If a Bill is presented in the next session in the same terms as the Bill reported to the House in accordance with paragraph 1, it shall be read the first and second time without Question put, shall be ordered to be printed, and shall stand committed, in respect of those clauses and schedules not ordered to stand part of the Bill in this session, to a Standing Committee of the same Members as the Members of the Standing Committee on the Bill in this session.

Orders of the Day — Thursday Sittings

[Relevant document: The Third Report from the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on Thursday Sittings (HC 719).]

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I understand that, with this, it will be convenient to discuss motion No. 3.
I also announce that the Speaker has selected the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton).

Mr. Tipping: In moving the motion, I will not detain the House long as it is almost identical to the one that was agreed on 16 December 1998, providing for an experiment with advancing Thursday sittings by three hours. I shall also refer to the motion to give Standing Committees greater flexibility.
Since December 1998, we have had the experience of seven months of Thursdays and an assessment by the Select Committee on Modernisation of that experiment. As the House will know, the Committee concluded:
Although some Members of the House continue to have reservations, it does appear that the majority of Members consider that the experience has been a success".
Before I deal with those reservations, I should remind the House of the benefits of the experiment.
For many hon. Members, bringing forward Thursday sittings by three hours has enabled a better balance to be struck between Westminster duties and constituency commitments. Much serious business has been dealt with on Thursdays, including some Opposition days. Moreover, the House has sat nearly an hour longer on Thursdays than it did in the previous year, before the experiment. Those who argue that the Government are trying to reduce accountability to the House perhaps need to digest that fact.
The experiment has also shown that, on one day a week, it is possible for the House to do a full day's business within what most people might consider to be normal working hours. I do not think that that that is a bad or small achievement for modernisation.
The Modernisation Committee's report on the experiment records the practical aspects. I realise that the experiment has required some adjustments in Standing


and Select Committees' Thursday morning sittings, but have to confess that I had not anticipated how imaginative individual Committees would be in using the greater flexibility in Committee meeting times—which we are also asking the House to renew today. Perhaps we have learned the merit of giving each Committee the freedom to adjust its own sitting pattern to the business of the House and the other commitments of its members.
The second motion, on Standing Committees, will continue that flexibility. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee, has tabled three amendments to extend that flexibility even further. If he is minded to move his amendments, I assure him that the Government would welcome such flexibility, and would accept the amendments.
I stress that the motions provide for a further Session's experiment. Therefore, the renewal would not be permanent, but be only for another Session, in which it will be possible to fine-tune the procedures and minimise any further difficulties. I hope that the Government's acceptance of the amendments will be a real demonstration that we are keen to make progress and to take people with us.
The change in Thursday sittings has been a significant modernisation of our sittings hours. So far, the experiment has proved worth while, and I see no strong pressure to revert to sitting from 2.30 to 10.30 pm on Thursdays. I therefore ask the House to continue the arrangements in the next Session.

Sir George Young: The two motions both relate to Thursdays and the experiment that began earlier in the year. The first motion relates to continuing the experiment, and refers to the Modernisation Committee's report—which steered a path between two opposing views. One view was that the experiment had been a success and should be made permanent, and the other was that the experiment should not have started and should be abandoned. The Minister mentioned the lively debate that we had just before Christmas, when, at the end of the debate, the House decided to go forward with the experiment. The report advocates a third way, in that it neither abandons the experiment nor suggests that it should be made permanent.
The report brings us up to date with the experiment. In paragraph 9, it quite fairly makes the point that
The evidence we have received … is largely anecdotal rather than formal".
The report also makes the point, in paragraph 12, that statistics can be interpreted in different ways. The table shows that, on Thursdays, fewer Government Bills have been debated, but that there have been more Government Adjournment debates. Nevertheless, in its conclusions, the report quite fairly states:
Although some Members of the House continue to have reservations"—

I certainly have reservations about the fact that there are now relatively few all-party meetings on Thursdays, thereby downgrading Thursday a little in the parliamentary week—
it does appear that the majority of Members consider that the experiment has been a success.
This is personal vote territory and I am happy to go along with the recommendation on the basis that we are carrying forward the experiment, not making it permanent.
Motion No. 3 is consequential on motion No. 2. I was delighted to hear that, were my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) to move his amendments, the Minister would be minded to accept them. That gives additional flexibility and is a sensible response to the experience of Standing Committees.
I hope that this may be a more consensual debate than the previous one. I shall support the motions.

Mr. Shaun Woodward: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Have you received a request from the Deputy Prime Minister to come to the House to make an apology for a news conference that he has given this afternoon outside the House about the railway summit, and to make a statement to the House about the outcome of the summit?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No such request has been received. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Chair is not responsible for the business of the House. It is always possible that a request to make a statement on that matter will be made or that the hon. Gentleman will find some other way of raising the matter during our proceedings.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Were you or Madam Speaker aware that the Deputy Prime Minister was apparently saying something of some importance outside the House? Were you surprised that no request came from the Deputy Prime Minister to say something in the House rather than outside?

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not get into the substance of the debate, but I know that you realise that the Transport Sub-Committee took detailed evidence from the Deputy Prime Minister on the contents of the meeting last week. What he said is recorded in the Committee report in considerable detail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. I can only repeat that no request to make a statement has been received. It is entirely up to the Minister concerned whether he believes that that is the appropriate course of action. I can make no further comment on that.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I have a small point to raise and I apologise for troubling the House with it. The Speaker's procession is important to parliamentary life. I do not have to explain or justify that to hon. Members. I should like to explore with Madam Speaker whether it would be possible for the procession to stay at its traditional time. Some might find that a surprising request, but a principle is to be breached by the morning


sittings in Westminster Hall, which, the document says, are not Committees, but the House of Commons sitting, albeit in Westminster Hall and with no mace and no prayers. That is the fiction—I do not mean that disparagingly—that is being put to us. It should not be beyond our capacity to arrange for the Speaker's procession to be restored to 2.30 on Thursdays. All that I am asking is for that to be considered. It would clearly be helpful and appropriate.

Mr. Tipping: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are having a debate. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was making a speech, to which the Minister may reply in due course, but I suspect that there are other contributions to be made first.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) was giving way to the Minister, but you are right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to say that the Minister will have an opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman's important point.
I am pleased to be able to contribute briefly to this short debate on Thursday sittings and the meetings of Standing Committees. I should like to speak to my three amendments and to move them when appropriate. I hope that you will give me advice on when it is appropriate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would be perfectly in order for the hon. Gentleman to move his amendments now.

Mr. Winterton: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order; I stand corrected. We are dealing with two motions together, so it is in order for the hon. Gentleman to speak to his amendments and then move them formally later.

Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that sound advice. I thought that I could speak to my amendments now and then have an opportunity to move them formally a little later.
I want to follow the comments of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about Thursday sittings and the agreeable opening remarks of the Minister. There is still debate in the Modernisation Committee on whether the experiment is a good thing. After seven months of the new Thursday sitting times, some hon. Members are still uncertain as to whether they are appropriate and have been a success. I suspect that the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) may seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not stimulating her or encouraging her to speak, but I know that she has strong views on the subject and played a major role when she was a member of the Modernisation Committee.
I have two hats in the debate, because as well as being a member of the Modernisation Committee I am the Chairman of the Procedure Committee—a job that I greatly relish and regard as a privilege. The hon. Member for Upminster (Mr. Darvill) did not succeed in getting in

to speak during the major debate that we had at the end of last week, but I suspect and hope that he intends to speak today.
There is still some uncertainty. The Committee had a full debate on the subject. The Leader of the House and the majority on the Committee were sensible to strike a happy balance between the traditionalists who want to return to the former procedures of the House—

Mr. Forth: Yes.

Mr. Winterton: My right hon. Friend is clearly one of those, although he does not sit on the Committee. There are also those who feel that the new way of operating has been a success, enabling the House to perform its role properly, while allowing some Members of Parliament to return to their constituencies and fulfil their important responsibilities there. I go along with my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House in wanting to give it another 12 months so that we can see, in the light of real experience, how successful the experiment has been. The statistics that the Minister drew to the attention of the House are relevant, showing that some of the views, concerns and opposition might not be entirely justified. It is important that the experiment should proceed.
I am grateful to Madam Speaker for accepting my three amendments on the sittings of Standing Committees. There are certain times when all Members of Parliament, whatever they are doing at the time, should be able to come to the Chamber. One such time is Prayers. There may be only a dozen, 20 or 30 Members present—although I am glad to say that attendances are generally higher than that—but, as long as Prayers are part of our procedures and the parliamentary day, all Members should have an opportunity to take part. That is why the amendments have been tabled.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When these changes were being considered originally, was not it always the firm intention that every Member of Parliament should have the right to be present in the Chamber for the whole of Question Time and prayers?

Mr. Winterton: The hon. Lady is right, and I am sure that the original timings failed to appreciate that Members would need to come from Committee Rooms that are some distance from the Chamber. If the adjournment of Standing Committees does not take place until the sitting of the House begins, clearly Members will not be able to come from the far-flung reaches of the Palace of Westminster—from Standing Committees and, in due course, from Westminster Hall sittings—to be present.
My amendments would ensure that people could be in the Chamber before prayers, but I am concerned that we may not be providing sufficient time. On Thursdays, there are not only questions, but business questions, which can be followed by important statements or private notice questions. Those who have been in the House for some time—such as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and me—will know that Question Time and statements can sometimes continue until 5.30 pm or even longer, on a normal parliamentary day. On Thursdays, that would translate to a different timetable, but it would still mean that some Members who would wish to contribute, or merely to listen to what was going on, would not be able to do so.
I am grateful to the Minister for showing flexibility on the timetable, and I hope that he will indicate that there will be a continuing disposition towards flexibility so that if, as the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, there are reasons for further adjusting the times that the House meets, the Government—perhaps through the Modernisation Committee—will be prepared to look at that and to propose further amendments.
The House must look at its procedures from time to time, and clearly the motions deal with matters that have received a great deal of support across the House—particularly from the Government, but also from the Opposition. However, I am not seeking to speak in any way for the Liberal Democratic party, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell)—who has notes in front of him—clearly wishes to speak in this debate. I welcome the flexibility and the agreeableness of the Minister's approach, and I shall be happy to follow the splendid example of my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I thank the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) for giving me such a warm introduction.
I support the extension of the Thursday experiment, and I hope that it will become a permanent institution of this House, as it introduces more sensible working practices. For all the reasons that have been given, I believe that it is right to continue the experiment, and I look forward to a debate at the start of the next Session in which we can confirm that permanent Thursday sittings should be in our Standing Orders.
The measures giving flexibility to Standing Committees have been welcomed, and I hope that the Committees will learn to use that flexibility to its fullest extent. I am content for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Macclesfield to go forward. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am a member of the Modernisation Committee and the Procedure Committee, and I believe that we are inching towards practices which more clearly reflect the modern society in which the House operates and the terms and conditions that we would expect for Members of Parliament.

Mr. Eric Forth: The only aspect of this matter that I welcome is the fact that the experiment is being extended for a further provisional year, so that we might have an opportunity to come to our senses subsequent to that. I say that because there is a hidden matter here which dare not speak its name. Hon. Members speak with approval about truncating Thursdays because—perhaps for understandable reasons—many want to get away from this place; it is obvious that a large number, if not most, do not particularly like being here. I sometimes wonder why they went to such great efforts to get elected.

Mr. Stunell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: Yes.

Hon. Members: Don't encourage him!

Mr. Stunell: It is not my intention to encourage the right hon. Gentleman. However, does he acknowledge that the House has sat for additional hours as a result of the changes, not reduced hours?

Mr. Forth: No. This is the sleight of hand that is being practised. It is one thing to claim that the House is sitting for more hours on Thursdays, but the hidden casualty of this has been Fridays. The number of Fridays on which the House sits has been reduced dramatically, apart from those allocated to private Members' Bills—which I very much welcome and enjoy, as not many Members here will know.
The Minister, in his coy but charming way, referred to the balance between Westminster and constituency time. The implication is that there is something undesirable about time that Members of Parliament spend at Westminster, and something positive and good about the time that Members spend in their constituencies. The tragedy of that argument is that—in so far as we, as Members of Parliament, conspire to downgrade the time that we spend at Westminster—we contribute to the lesser respect with which people at large and the media have for what we do at Westminster. If we demonstrate time and again that we want to get away and spend less time here, how can we expect people outside to have respect for what we do?

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: I understand that the right hon. Gentleman's constituency is about 18 miles from Westminster; mine is 318 miles away, as is the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew). I understand that it takes the right hon. Gentleman 30 minutes to get back to his constituency; it takes me almost six hours from door to door. In the light of that, does he think that some of us can quite rightfully ask for more time in our constituencies when we spend 12 hours at least every week travelling back and forth?

Mr. Forth: I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I do not totally agree. Previously, I had the honour of representing a constituency in the west midlands, and there was some travelling time involved in getting to and from there. However, I would not have argued any differently then from now. I have a clear view of the priorities that a Member of Parliament should hold. The vital part of a Member of Parliament's work is here at Westminster, trying to hold the Government to account and scrutinising legislation. Constituency duties, important as they are, should be fitted in around that.

Mrs. Dunwoody: When I was first elected here, I represented a west country seat, and many of us who had a very long journey—mine took more than five hours by car—were extremely irritated when we were told that the Scots should always have preference, because they needed to get home. Since they flew, which took less than an hour, and we spent many hours on the road, some of us find not entirely realistic the suggestion that only by going home on a Thursday night can one fulfil one's duties.

Mr. Forth: I accept what the hon. Lady says, although we may be on the way to resolving the Scottish problem in a way that we did not altogether anticipate.
I accept the motion, which says that we will review the matter further at the end of the next Session, but I want to flag up the fact that we are in danger of losing Fridays almost completely as part of the parliamentary week. I would deeply regret that, because anything that diminishes the time available to the House for deliberation and scrutiny is to be regretted.

Mr. David Winnick: There must be quite a number of Conservative Members or former Members who wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) had spent more time away from the House. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not being taken in by his own propaganda, as those of us who have the honour of being elected here consider that our duties are first and foremost at Westminster. That does not conflict in any way with our constituency duties. There is no substance to the idea that Labour Members consider Westminster an occupation of two or three days and that our main duties are in the constituency. We have always recognised that our job is first and foremost here. That is why we stood for election in the first place.

Mr. Forth: That would be all very well if there were no such thing as what I gather the Government call constituency weeks.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They have been abolished.

Mr. Forth: I hope that they have been. I hope that they are a matter for some shame among Government Members. The fact that the Government were prepared, in the hubris following the general election result, to say, "Don't bother about Westminster; go off to your constituencies," is a shocking illustration of their contempt for this place.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Many Labour Members were allocated constituency weeks but never took them up. I was allocated one and did not take it, and the same goes for hundreds of Labour Members.

Mr. Forth: Of course I accept what the hon. Gentleman says of himself, but if he really wants to pursue the matter, a perusal of the voting records for the first year or two of this Parliament might reveal a different story. Perhaps he and I could amuse ourselves by considering the voting records of the 417 Labour Members elected in May 1997 to see whether they bear out what he says. I am sure that he was here almost all the time, but I wonder about some of the other 416.

Mr. Mackinlay: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman take heart from the fact that sometimes experiments are abandoned? That is precisely what happened with constituency weeks. Let us move on.

Mr. Forth: I wish that most of the experiments that we have here were abandoned. That would give me great joy, but I do not hold out too much hope.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: In the so-called move towards more modern practices, is not public access to Parliament one of the casualties? There is less opportunity for people to see their elected Members and

sit in the Gallery or, most importantly, for school parties and others to be taken around both the House of Lords and the House of Commons. That can really happen only on a Tuesday morning now. Our action in consulting our own convenience is detrimental to the people who sent us here.

Mr. Forth: I could not agree more. We run a risk of being perceived as putting our convenience ahead of the access that our constituents have traditionally had and still want.

Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does not the next item on the Order Paper reinstate Wednesday morning access to the Chamber and deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton)? The right hon. Gentleman need not worry about access to the Chamber.

Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend was talking about Thursday mornings, because that is the item that we are debating now. I would not have had Wednesday morning sittings in the first place, and neither do I agree with the so-called Main Committee or Westminster Hall sittings, about which I will have more to say later or on a subsequent occasion, as I have now been to Canberra and seen the original and realised what a deception was practised on us when we were sold that false bill of goods.

Mr. Peter Brooke: I agree with the tenor of the observations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and understand his unease about the present pattern of Thursday sittings. I, too, am glad that the experiment is to run for another year.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). On Friday, I travelled to a trustees' meeting in the Lake district, in a constituency adjacent to his. I had to decant from the train at Preston because of the tragic accident suffered by the Royal Air Force at Shap, and the journey was pretty prolonged. I recognise the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and I are both London Members and that some other hon. Members' constituencies are a considerable distance away.
There are problems—not connected with travel—with Thursdays for London Members, too. I receive almost 3,000 invitations a year in my constituency, and I regularly attend business questions, and, frankly, the fact that one does not know whether that will happen at 12.30 or later inevitably takes a great chunk out of one's working Thursday and is a complication. The private convenience of London Members is not decisive in the balance, but I mention it to make it clear that there is an alternative point of view.
I agree with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) that experiments can be reversed.
Paragraph 13 of the Modernisation Committee's report says:
The number of meetings of all-party groups and backbench committees on Thursdays appears to have gone down in this Parliament compared with the last.


I do not know where that word "appears" comes from—either it has gone down or it has not—but I take it that the meaning is that it has gone down. The paragraph goes on to say that perhaps we are having more such meetings on Mondays.
I have a separate problem with all-party groups: at the last count, there were 266 of them and rising. The figure is becoming ridiculous. There is no way in which outside groups can get a decent attendance by Members of Parliament if there are 266 all-party groups competing for our attention on Tuesday, Wednesday and part of Monday. I hope that, when the experiment is monitored in a year's time, the present practice and performance of all-party groups will be examined.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: It is becoming increasingly difficult to get a room in which to hold a meeting on a Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is another problem that the Modernisation Committee should consider, because of the shortened week and the fact that there are now virtually no all-party group meetings on a Thursday?

Mr. Brooke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. I entirely agree that any examination of the all-party group issue in a year's time should be comprehensive and take in all considerations.
I have made the point that I wanted to make, which relates to paragraph 13. I am glad that the experiment will be given another year's run, and I look forward to the review.

Mr. Tipping: I am slightly anxious because during the previous debate I was described as emollient while in this debate I have been described as coy but charming. There are two more debates this evening and I feel rather exposed.
We have had a helpful debate. There has been an understanding in the Chamber about the need for flexibility and there is flexibility within the motion on Standing Committees. It will have occurred to many Members that, apart from a slight prescription, the House is giving Committees the opportunity to meet when they want. One of the opportunities that Select Committees and Standing Committees may want to take in future is to meet when the House is not normally sitting during holiday periods. No group has yet taken that opportunity, but I do not think it will be long before groups of Members take it.
Members work hard, and one of the themes that have run through the debate has been the desire to be in the House to pursue business and causes. There is also the desire to have the opportunity to listen to constituents and other ordinary people as well as to know the tone and mood of Parliament. I was slightly surprised when the

right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said that a consequence of that is that Fridays have changed. The right hon. Gentleman has been in the House longer than I and he will realise that the changes have come from the Jopling report. He and other hon. Members have recognised that it seems from the experiment that we have had so far that on a Thursday the House is meeting for an hour longer than previously. I think that during the experiment next year we shall be able to judge more thoroughly what sort of business is taken on a Thursday.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned the Speaker's procession. I think that he was talking about his desire for a Speaker's procession on a Wednesday. If a later motion is approved, it may well be possible for Madam Speaker to recommence the procession on a Wednesday. Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be similar meeting days. It is a matter for Madam Speaker. There are others in the Chamber with greater influence than I. I am sure that my hon. Friend's point has been heard. The traditions of the House are important. As the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said, it is important that people have the right to come and appreciate these traditions and to see the House at work. If we are minded to go forward with the Westminster Hall experiment, Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays will be available for constituents to visit the House in the morning.
I have different experiences from some hon. Members of people who visit the House on a Thursday. Some groups who have come on a Thursday have been delighted to have the opportunity to see Question Time in the morning and then discuss what they have seen over lunch. We have the opportunity of giving people choices.
I want to stress that I am keen that we are flexible on this matter. We have been able to take amendments this evening and I think that there will be further changes. The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said that this is a sensible third way forward. I am grateful for his comments. Perhaps I can return the compliment in buckets and say that this seems to be the common-sense approach.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:

(1) The House shall meet on Thursdays at half-past Eleven o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;
(2) proceedings on business on Thursdays shall be interrupted at Seven o'clock; and
(3) in their application to Thursday sittings of the House, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time three hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Ten o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration).

Orders of the Day — Meetings of Standing Committees

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, in the next session of Parliament, the Standing Orders and practice of the House shall have effect subject to the modifications set out below:
Standing committees shall have leave to sit at any hour and notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, subject to the following provisions:

(a) on Mondays, Tuesdays and Wednesdays when the House is sitting, no standing committee sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of one o'clock and half-past three o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees); and
(b) on Thursdays when the House is sitting, no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of half-past eleven o'clock and half-past twelve o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), with the substitution in that paragraph of "half-past eleven o'clock" for "one o'clock" and "a quarter to twelve o'clock" for "a quarter past one o'clock".—[Mr. Tipping.]

Amendments made: In paragraph (b), after "between the hours of leave out "half-past" and insert "twenty-five minutes past".

In paragraph (b), after "paragraph of leave out "half-past" and insert "twenty-five minutes past".

In paragraph (b), after '"one o'clock' and" leave out "a quarter" and insert "twenty minutes".—[Mr. Nicholas Winterton.]

Motion, as amended, agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Sittings in Westminster Hall

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall under the terms of the Order [24th May] until Tuesday 30th November.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That following the Order [24th May], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.

Mr. Tipping: The motion supplements the motion which was agreed by the House on 24 May, to provide for an experiment with sittings in Westminster Hall. I will not repeat the points that were made on 24 May because the motion covers only two specific points. First, it enables the four senior members of the Chairmen's Panel to be appointed as additional Deputy Speakers to take the Chair during the sittings in Westminster Hall. They are all well known to the House for a variety of different reasons, but tonight, I shall stress only two: their impartiality in the Chair and, secondly, their well-known independence in debate on a range of different matters. All four can safely be called prominent supporters of the voice of the House.
The Members in question are the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr. McWilliam), for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) and for Stockton, North (Mr. Cook). I believe that the House accepts that they are all well qualified to carry out the duties of the Chair during sittings in Westminster Hall.
The House will be grateful to those four Members for being willing to give up even more of their time in taking the Chair and ensuring that the proceedings in Westminster Hall, as an experiment, get off to a smooth and good start. The Chairman of Ways and Means will take the lead in those sittings. He and the existing Deputy Speakers will also take an active part in chairing proceedings.
The second part of the motion sets Tuesday 30 November as the starting date for such sittings. This is because the new Session is due to start on Wednesday 17 November. Starting the sittings in the second full week of the Session will give sufficient time for the Speaker's Office to conduct the ballots for Back-Bench Member debates on Tuesday 30 November and Wednesday 1 December. I want to make it clear that that means that there will be no morning sitting in the House on Wednesday 24 November.

Sir George Young: As the Minister said, the motion arises from the debate that we had on 24 May, when, on a free vote, the House decided to proceed with sittings in Westminster Hall on an experimental basis. There are two parts to the motion. On the first, perhaps the Minister will confirm, if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the physical arrangements will be completed in time for the sittings to start on 30 November. Is he able to say anything about the


likely business that will be taken in the week beginning 30 November? If this experiment is to take place and be successful, it is important that there should be a series of lively debates in the first week. Within the constraints of a ballot for the motions, I hope that the Government will do all that they can to promote the debates.
As the Minister said when dealing with the second part of the motion, the House is grateful to the four Members who are assuming additional responsibilities. It may not be a matter for the Minister, but will the Chairmen's Panel need reinforcement if some of the existing Chairmen are diverted into other responsibilities? If they are to be additional Deputy Speakers, and I think that the Deputy Speakers are paid for their work in that role, I wonder whether any additional remuneration—[Interruption.] I see the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) shaking her head sadly. She has probably answered my question. It seems that they will be Deputy Speakers in name.

Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Whenever there is extra work and no pay, my name automatically leaps into the frame, in conjunction with various other right hon. and hon. Members, but when there is pay and no work somehow I mysteriously disappear off the list.

Sir George Young: The hon. Lady needs a good shop steward to represent her interests, because her generosity is clearly being abused on a monstrous scale. She has answered my question, but I hope that the Minister can reassure us that all the physical arrangements will be in place and that such decisions as the Government are able to take will be taken to ensure that the experiment starts. On that basis, I am happy to give my support to the motion.

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: On a superficial reading of the motion, it would probably be anticipated that it will go through on the nod, but one or two comments should be made. The point made by the right hon. Member for North—West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) about payment is relevant. Incidentally, we should congratulate the Minister, because two reshuffles ago—that is of course not very long—he started to receive salary for the first time for his work as a Minister. Generally and in politics, I do not like the idea that people should do things for nowt instead of for the rate for the job.
The question of salaries for the new Deputy Speakers is not addressed in the motion, but I am worried that we may be making appointments in a flip way without thinking through the status appropriate to the office of Deputy Speaker and the duties involved. At some stage, the House should consider the possibility of appropriate remuneration and other benefits that accompany the office of Deputy Speaker, and the question whether Deputy Speakers appointed for Westminster Hall should be part of the wider team. I am mindful of the fact that the Canadian House of Commons has the same number of Speakers and Deputy Speakers as we have, but it has far fewer plenary sessions. I take my hat off to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues because you sit

in the Chair for many hours. There are not enough of you in the team and, in due course, we should consider whether the responsibilities of the new team of Deputy Speakers should be extended to this Chamber. If that happened, we would also need to consider the question of salary and—without embarrassing anybody by making a specific reference—the other emoluments and benefits that flow from the office.
I raise my second point with some hesitation, because all four of the hon. Members named in the motion are, to say the least, fine Members of Parliament. I consider them my friends and, contrary to their better judgment, they may have some regard for me. However, I do not believe that this is the correct way to appoint Deputy Speakers. This is the first time that we have appointed a plethora of Deputy Speakers in mid-Session. Those named are the four most senior members of the Chairmen's Panel and proven parliamentarians who are known for their impartiality, but if in future we come to appoint more second division Deputy Speakers—I do not mean that disparagingly—or indeed other Deputy Speakers, we should adopt a procedure on the same lines by which we elect the Speaker of the House.
Before the parliamentary recess, I talked to the Clerk about the procedures for this evening's motion and I asked him whether it would be possible to amend it or to divide the House. If the previous debate had continued, we would not even have been able to have this discussion, but the appointment of Members to senior offices of the House of Commons should be the subject of proper debate and involve nominations from the Floor of the House, not be handed down on the basis of seniority on the Chairmen's Panel. I hope that in future we might consider a similar selection process for the seven Deputy Speakers as applies to the election of the Speaker.
My final point may be seen as pedantic, but I first visited the House of Commons at the age of 12 and ever since I have steeped myself in its ritual and history. We are told that the sittings in Westminster Hall will be sittings of the House of Commons itself, not of a Committee. In that case, I would have assumed that the Mace would be present, as it is before us tonight, because I understood that without the Mace the House of Commons is not sitting. The Mace has been called a bauble and I did not write the rules, but I would like the point to be clarified. Is it in or out? If it is so important, it should be placed in Westminster Hall for the sittings, and if it is not, it should be put in a glass case.
Sometimes we rush to alter and vary rules and proceedings without thinking through the consequences, but the House is entitled to know whether it will be the House of Commons sitting in Westminster Hall. If so, what are the new rubrics and Standing Orders that take account of the fact that the Mace will not be in place? Perhaps we should have a whip-round to buy a new Mace.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman might borrow the mace from Congleton, from which the parliamentary Mace was copied some time ago. I am sure that the burghers of Congleton would be only too delighted to lend it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I wish to point out that we are now straying some way from the motion.

Mr. Mackinlay: I am disappointed that you take that view, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because I am making a serious


point about the Mace. Why should we be so arrogant as to change 600 years of history this evening? I was upset when the Prayers were altered arbitrarily. I would have liked to submit my version, but the changes just happened without discussion. For example, I notice that the phrase about laying aside "all partial affections" no longer appears. I shall not labour the point further, but the new status of Westminster Hall, and its place in our histories and traditions, should be made clear.

Mr. Eric Forth: I wish to endorse the comments made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). It is curious that we take great pride in the fact that we elect our Speaker—the voice of the House—but the Deputy Speakers and now these new appointments arise from that mysterious process known euphemistically as the usual channels. I am rather tired of the usual channels.
I had the privilege of accompanying the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to Australia and to see the Main Committee in action. I also had discussions with the Clerks to the Main Committee. Afterwards, I was even more worried than before, when this ghastly new institution was introduced at Westminster. I did not know before that that party discipline in the federal Parliament in Canberra is even stronger than it is here and the opportunity for individual Members of Parliament to express views—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that the motion concerns simply the dates for sittings in Westminster Hall and the appointment of Deputy Speakers. It is quite tightly drawn.

Mr. Forth: In that case, I shall cast my remarks in such a way as to make it clear that I wish that the date proposed were different. I would prefer it to be postponed so that we could consider, for example, whether we have sufficient Standing Orders in place to protect the role of individual Members of Parliament, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) mentioned. Postponing the implementation of the Westminster Hall sittings and adjusting the motion accordingly would allow us to give further consideration to the question whether the Standing Orders that we have at present cover adequately the procedures necessary to protect the role of individual hon. Members.
I fear that the new process may gallop out of the control of hon. Members. I recall that we were told that only non-controversial business would be discussed in Westminster Hall. However, on my visit to Canberra I discovered that the Australian definition of uncontroversial business covers what is agreed through the usual channels, and that the role of individual Members there is almost zero. I worry that that is what will happen here unless we are adequately and fully protected by Standing Orders.
I hope that that problem will be given proper attention before 30 November. Although I could wish that that date could be put back to allow more time for that consideration, I hope that the point made by the hon. Member for Thurrock will not be forgotten. There may be scope now to examine how appointments—such as those contained in the motion or even, dare I say it, to the

Chairmen's Panel—are made. At present, the process is rather mysterious. A more open process would enable the holders of such important jobs to have even more confidence than at present that they have the support and endorsement of rank-and-file Members of Parliament.
I hope that we can return to that matter in future, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Thurrock for raising it.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Until about 10 minutes ago, I was not planning to speak in the debate, but I am worried by the wording of the motion. It describes the people who will be appointed to preside over proceedings in what, in effect, will be known as another place.

Mr. Mackinlay: No, it is the House of Commons. I must tell my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that I think that he is wrong. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm this, but we have been told that the sittings in Westminster Hall will be part of the proceedings of the House of Commons. I am not sure that I approve, but we have been told that those sittings will not be Committee sittings and that they will not be regarded as comprising another Chamber of the House.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: That is precisely my point: Westminster Hall will be another place in the sense that it will be another Chamber of the House of Commons, rather than a Committee.
The motion states:
That … Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.
However, the second report by the Modernisation Committee states:
We therefore recommend that sittings in Westminster Hall should be chaired by the Deputy Speakers, and that the four members who have served longest on the Chairmen's Panel should be formally appointed by the House as additional Deputy Speakers to sit in Westminster Hall. We do not envisage that those Members would be subject to the restraints on political activity which apply by convention to the existing Deputy Speakers.
I have always understood that Deputy Speakers in the House of Commons complied with the convention that constrained their political activities. It has only just dawned on me that the motion will establish a structure under which a Deputy Speaker will be free, for the first time, to be politically active on the Floor of the House of Commons. That might be misconstrued, both in the United Kingdom and in those other parts of the world where we are advocating the Westminster constitutional arrangement.
That is not a spurious point. I hope that the four eminently knowledgeable and sensible people referred to in the motion will not punish me in the future for my remarks this evening. However, the proposed change is an important one. The four hon. Members mentioned in the motion will be known as Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons. No distinction will be drawn outside the House between this Chamber and another Chamber—what I have called another place—of the House of Commons. The result will be that there will be two


different types of Deputy Speakers: those who are able to engage in politics in the Chamber, and those who cannot. There is something wrong with that in principle.
However, there is a way to resolve the problem. We can describe the new appointments in a different way. They should not be referred to as Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman who, being one of the appointees, has an interest in the matter.

Mr. Winterton: Like the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), I had no intention of speaking in this debate on this motion. However, I hope that the Minister and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) will confirm that, although we shall be known as Deputy Speakers, we will be the Deputy Speakers who preside over proceedings in Westminster Hall. We will not preside in this Chamber of the House of Commons, even though Westminster Hall will be a complementary adjunct to the House of Commons as we know it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I warn hon. Members in advance that we will never be able to argue that distinction when we present the House of Commons to people in the United Kingdom or anywhere else in the world. They will simply not understand what we are talking about. To all intents and purposes we are creating, by means of this motion, four new Deputy Speakers in the British Parliament. Before we agree to the proposal, we should consider seriously its implications. The distinction drawn by the hon. Member for Macclesfield will not be understood outside the House of Commons.

Mr. Clive Soley: As a member of the Modernisation Committee that was so keen on introducing this innovation, I must ask my hon. Friend to bear in mind that it is an experiment. As with any experiment, some of the complexities—such as the one that my hon. Friend has identified—require further consideration. Dealing with all such matters in advance in Committee would have caused our deliberations to go on for ever and a day. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that we must revisit the structure that is being established in this experiment.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I have no objection whatsoever to the structure being created. I am in favour of it, and all hon. Members want it. However, I maintain that we should not call the four hon. Members mentioned in the motion Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons. To do so would be an error. I appeal to my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the matter very seriously. The motion is wrong. It will lead to misunderstandings and will create difficulties.

Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman may be slightly reassured to note that the motion specifies that the four hon. Members mentioned will be
appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.
The period is therefore heavily qualified. That might give hon. Members another opportunity to return to the matter, when we can deal with the points that have been raised. The words "during the next session" mean that a backstop is available. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with me that that is reassuring?

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Although I have invariably taken a different view from the right hon. Gentleman on the changes that have been introduced, he will know, from his own experience of dealing with questions of modernisation over the past few months, that such changes, once in place, become almost irreversible. The House accepts them if they appear to be working. The point on which I am focusing is very narrow. The House will not necessarily want to reconsider it unless a dispute develops internationally, perhaps through the Inter-Parliamentary Union or the CPA. I am simply alerting the House to a problem that I know will arise.

Mr. Paul Tyler: In addition to the reassurances offered from both sides of the House, would it further reassure the hon. Gentleman if "additional" were given a capital A? The motion states that the four Members named will act as "additional Deputy Speakers". By making that "Additional Deputy Speakers", would we not make matters different? I take the hon. Gentleman's point that, if the experiment extends to a year and appears to be successful, the precedent may have been set.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman seeks a compromise, but even that arrangement would be wrong. The four Chairmen are not Deputy Speakers of the House of Commons as I understand that office. They would not avoid conflict in the Chamber. Indeed, some of the four appointees are controversial Members with very strong views. I welcome the controversy that they bring, and have done over the years, but giving those four hon. Members the title "Deputy Speaker" would undermine the position of Deputy Speakers under our current arrangements.

Mr. John Bercow: At the risk of inflicting grave damage on the hon. Gentleman's reputation, let me say that I entirely agree with him. Does he agree that the issue is not whether the new arrangements work or not? In fact, we do not even know what "work" means in this case. If all we mean is that the four newly appointed "Deputy Speakers" should behave when they chair proceedings in Westminster Hall, we shall learn nothing that we cannot guess from the characters of the four distinguished hon. Members concerned. The point is that it is wrong in principle to designate them Deputy Speakers. It is clumsy and stupid, and we have an opportunity to prevent it.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, and I have no difficulty in doing so as this is a House of Commons occasion, not a Government matter or a political debate. We are discussing the credibility and integrity of the House of Commons. I appeal to the


Minister not to proceed with the motion as it stands. The four named hon. Members will be Chairmen of debates in Westminster Hall. We should call them Chairmen, not Deputy Speakers.

Mr. Soley: Let me try to take my hon. Friend with me. I agree that he is a great parliamentarian—[Interruption.] I think that he is. The House must face up to the fact that, if we are to modernise—and everyone keeps telling me that they want modernization—

Mr. Forth: No.

Mr. Soley: Well, not everyone on the Opposition Benches, perhaps.
We cannot dot every i and cross every t, but we can revisit matters later. My hon. Friend is forgetting that, in addition to the ability of the House to revisit the matter, the Modernisation Committee will examine how the proposals work and will recommend changes if necessary. My hon. Friend's point is a good one, but we should not use it to hold back change.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: I believe that Governments can table motions at any time that they want. There is always time to debate a motion that must pass through the House of Commons. We have learned that lesson over the years. I have never been convinced by arguments about Government time.
I am worried—I shall repeat the point so that there is no misunderstanding—because the office of Deputy Speaker is a non-political office in this Parliament. It has been so during the 20 years that I have been a Member. Long should it remain so.
As of today, however, the office of Deputy Speaker will become a politicised appointment, from which its holders may argue a political case in the House of Commons. The very silence in the Chamber convinces me that many of the hon. Members sitting here know that I am right, and that that point had not dawned on them when they passed the Modernisation Committee's report. Members are considering what I am saying, because they know that there is truth in it. We are making a mistake, and I beg the Minister to withdraw the motion.

Mr. Tipping: This has been a narrow debate around two issues. The first concerns the appointment of four people to chair sittings during the Westminster Hall experiment. The second is the date on which the experiment will start. I stress that we are discussing an experiment, perhaps one of the largest modernisation experiments that the House will consider during this Parliament. As with all experiments, some things will undoubtedly go right, and others wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) made his point well. Indeed, he made it three or four times to make sure that I got it. I did, and senior members of the Select Committee on Modernisation, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley), also got the point. Several hon. Members have tried to reassure my hon. Friend that we will examine the point and learn from the experiment.
I was asked whether Westminster Hall would be ready. Preparations are under way and we will be ready to start on 30 November.
I agree entirely with the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) that Westminster Hall must get off to a good start. It is an important experiment, giving Back-Bench Members much greater opportunities. There will be 140 extra Back-Bench debates, the chance to debate three dozen extra Select Committee reports and the possibility of 17 or 18 general debates. Those figures give the lie to any suggestion that the Government are denying Back-Bench Members the opportunity to raise issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) said that he had read the report and the motion superficially—

Mr. Mackinlay: No, I did not. I did not read them superficially. I said that anyone who read the motion superficially might think that it was about Deputy Speakers. It is, in fact, about much more.

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend used the words "on a superficial reading". One thing that I admire about my hon. Friend is that, when he reads things—even superficially—he has a tendency to read things into them. I can assure him that there has been no collusion between the usual channels about how the four names were selected. The method of selecting the names came directly from the proposals of the Modernisation Committee. Discussions have been held with the Chairmen's Panel, but the panel does not, in my experience, collude with the Government. The panel's voice is very much independent, no matter how uncomfortable that may be for the Government or for the Opposition.
We have had a long debate over whether the name Deputy Speaker is right. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) pointed out that these would be additional Deputy Speakers sitting in Westminster Hall. These are new creatures, and their roles will develop. I do not say that we have necessarily got it right, and I repeat my undertaking to look again at that matter.

Mr. Bercow: The Minister has used the word experiment, a word used many times. If he insists on describing what we are doing as an experiment, with the unstated implication that it will be up for review, will he be good enough to tell us the criteria by which its success or otherwise will be evaluated? Will the criteria include the considerations to which the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has drawn attention—that is, the capacity of people outside the House and outside the United Kingdom to interpret the difference between the additional Deputy Speakers and those who hold the existing office?

Mr. Tipping: That may well be one of the criteria by which the matter is judged. The issue of whether it is confusing to have one group of people bearing the name "Deputy Speaker" or one group with the name "additional Deputy Speaker" is a fairly small one by which to judge success. The success or failure of the body will depend on whether Back-Bench Members of Parliament have the


chance forcefully and robustly to raise issues that affect their constituencies. It has been said that that is a separate matter, but, for me, it is the key issue.

Mrs. Dunwoody: I understand the problem that hon. Members express; I would be happy to consider some other title. I have been called many things in my life—not always parliamentary. Surely, we have overlooked one aspect of the matter; many members of the Chairmen's Panel have the ability to swap roles. When one is in the Chair, one is impartial. All of us also participate in other parts of the parliamentary programme. Indeed, if the Chairmen, who are all volunteers, or pressed men and women, were dependent on being chosen by the usual channels, the Chairmen's Panel would be very different from the one that we have at present. That is a mildly unrealistic description of the situation, if my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive for saying so. At present, all of us take the Chair, sit there for many hours and I hope—indeed I know—that we are impartial. However, we then do other things without any difficulty. If a change of nomenclature is all that is needed, I can think of a dozen different words—including some of the things that I would call some of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Tipping: With her great experience, my hon. Friend makes the point fairly and more forcefully than I could. Earlier, the hon. Member for Macclesfield said that he wore two hats. If the experiment goes ahead, he will have yet another hat to wear.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister has provoked me. In fact, I wear three hats. If the motion is passed, I shall be wearing four hats. [Interruption.] I hear cries of "Big head". The hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) is absolutely right; members of Madam Speaker's Chairmen's Panel undertake that job voluntarily and are wholly impartial when they are in the Chair. I point out to the Minister and to the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) raised a number of issues. If the new additional Deputy Speakers for sittings in Westminster Hall were remunerated, the situation would be very different indeed. In that case, clearly, we could not operate both in the maelstrom of the House of Commons—taking party political positions—and as additional Deputy Speakers. However, at present, that is not what it is about; we are asked to undertake that additional duty voluntarily as Members of the House of Commons—all four of us have the great honour and privilege of accepting it.

Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman wears many hats, some of them extremely large. I know the reason for that—his constituency is one of the centres of this country's hat-making trade. I am delighted that he so vigorously argues the case for Cheshire's hat-makers. However, he makes a serious point—as does my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich

(Mrs. Dunwoody). At present, the fact that those posts are unpaid gives their occupants—whoever they may be—an independence. They are not linked to anyone's patronage, and all the proposed names will continue the long tradition of speaking vigorously and independently, while being fair, open and honest chairpeople.
Finally, I confirm that the Westminster Hall sittings will be complementary to those of this House; it will not be a Committee, but a complementary or alternative body to the House. The matter raises interesting questions about the Mace; the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is pursuing her own case—Cheshire Members are out in force tonight—to try to find a solution. We shall need to consider such issues.

Mr. Mackinlay: Paragraph 40 of the minutes of the Modernisation Committee for 3 February 1997 states:
Ceremonial with or without a Mace and precise staffing requirements by a Serjeant at Arms, Doorkeepers, Office Keepers, Attendants and security staff will have to be discussed and agreed once more details of the Main Committee emerge.
That implies that the House as a whole would approve what those arrangements should be. I am not sure that we have done so today, either in this motion or in our debate and vote on the thrust of the Committee's report. Unless I am mistaken, the matter has yet to be discussed. If we have resolved the matter, perhaps the Minister could explain when we did so, as it is not clear to me.

Mr. Tipping: As has been said, this is a fairly narrow debate. I remind my hon. Friend that the Modernisation Committee report was discussed earlier this year, when there was ample opportunity to make points such as those that he has just made.
I return to the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush and myself: this is a big experiment and we shall not get it right immediately. I am going out of my way to be flexible and to point out that we may not have got it right, and we may not know all the consequences, but interesting issues are being raised. However, I give an undertaking—

Mr. Mackinlay: My hon. Friend is putting in the rivets as the ship goes down the slipway.

Mr. Tipping: I want the ship to sail; I want it to be one of which we can be proud. My hon. Friends, who are members of the Modernisation Committee and have worked hard on this matter, can be confident of our good will and of our further undertaking that we are prepared to consider the experiment, and will wish the ship godspeed.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That there shall be no sittings in Westminster Hall under the terms of the Order [24th May] until Tuesday 30th November.

Ordered,
That, following the Order [24th May], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Frank Cook and Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during the next session.—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — Questions to Ministers 7.7 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

(a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or
(b) relates to matters which:

(i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,
(ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or
(iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or

(c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.

This motion and the next two spring directly from the fourth report of the Procedure Committee on the procedural consequences of devolution, and the Government's response to that report. Hon. Members will recall that the issues were extensively discussed as recently as last Thursday.
I want to reinforce two points. First, I am extremely grateful to the Procedure Committee for its thorough examination of the process. Devolution will bring about change. The motions before the House implement changes that will accrue over time. Secondly, I wholly agree with the Procedure Committee and the theme of the debate that took place last week: this is not the first time that we have discussed devolution, and it certainly will not be the last time.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I have submitted a question to the Home Secretary on the changes that he proposes, by way of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, the Mental Health (Scotland) 1984 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995. It is important that our right to continue to ask questions of that nature is stressed. If we are to be given the power of questioning Ministers on the operation of a concordat, or other instrument of liaison, between the UK Government and the devolved Executives, surely it is important that this House holds a debate on the memorandum of understanding and the principles underlying the concordats themselves. I should have thought that that holds for the relationship between Cardiff and this place; the relationship between Stormont and this place, assuming things over in Northern Ireland go well this week; and the relationship between Edinburgh and this place. How can we ask questions on concordats and the memorandum of understanding without the Government first laying down the principles underlying the memorandum and the concordats?

Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend makes important points. He is right to say that the concordat and the procedures lying behind it give hon. Members an opportunity to look at the processes occurring between the Westminster Parliament and the new Scottish Parliament—it is about

the mechanics of the operation. My hon. Friend repeated a request made last week for a debate on the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. He will appreciate that, at this stage of the parliamentary cycle, time is extremely pressing and that I cannot give him a commitment today to hold that debate, but I assure him that his cry has not gone unnoticed. I am sure that we shall return to the issue he raises. My hon. Friend is also right to emphasise a point made in last week's debate—that it is important that UK Ministers here in the Westminster Parliament should continue to be questioned about issues that affect hon. Members and their constituents.
At this point, I shall say only that we had a good, long and helpful debate on these matters last week. The House is being asked to approve three motions this evening: the first on questions to Ministers, the second on changes to Select Committees and the third on amendments to Standing Orders relating to the Advocate General for Scotland. Having made those general points and reserving the opportunity to take specific points relating to individual motions later, I hope that the House will endorse the way forward I have set out.

Sir George Young: Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you first clarify whether all the remaining motions are being taken together or whether we are to have three separate debates? I understand that the Minister would like them all to be taken together; is that to be the case?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We are currently debating motion No. 5, on questions to Ministers.

Sir George Young: On that specific motion, I agree with the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that it would be helpful to have debates on the concordats and the memorandums of understanding.
We had a full debate on Thursday, from which the motion arises. I make no apology for repeating a point I made then. The motion defines, in respect of questions to Ministers, what is in order and what is out of order; with one exception, what one can and cannot ask is relatively clear. If a matter
has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales",
it is out of order here, whereas if the question
seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require",
it is in order. If the question relates to areas in which
UK Ministers … retain administrative powers",
it is in order; likewise, if it relates to
legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament",
or to "a concordat", it is in order.
The grey area can be found in paragraph (b)(iii) which states that a question is in order if it relates to matters where
UK Government Ministers have taken an official interest".
On Thursday, I asked whether that posed the threat of the whole issue becoming clouded. I gave an example of a UK Government Minister, the Minister of Agriculture,


Fisheries and Food, taking an official interest in whether the beef-on-the-bone ban was lifted in Scotland. The moment he took an official interest, hon. Members could table questions on a devolved matter. It would be helpful if, at some point, someone defined exactly what "an official interest" is. Is it any interest declared by a Minister, or can a Minister declare an official interest only if he has responsibility for the matter under the devolution legislation?
I posed that question on Thursday, but, sadly, the Secretary of State for Scotland did not get around to answering it when he wound up the debate. If the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, can shed any light on the definition of "an official interest", it would help to avoid any confusion at Question Time about whether a question was in or out of order.

Mr. Gareth Thomas: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I was unable to catch your eye during last Thursday's debate on the procedural consequences of devolution, so I am grateful to have the opportunity to address the House this evening.
The point is that there are procedural consequences arising out of devolution. To a large extent, the motion before the House reflects those consequences, but I question whether it is sufficiently robust to provide the degree of clarity that Members of Parliament require to do their job. The procedural consequences of devolution are such that we are entering uncharted waters. Although a pragmatic and evolutionary approach might be more in tune with the general approach and predisposition of this House, I submit that clear guidelines are needed.
Such guidelines are needed, first, to eliminate confusion and, secondly, to assist hon. Members in assessing what is or is not in order when tabling questions—we have had already the unhappy experience of considerable confusion occurring during Welsh questions before the summer recess. Thirdly, there is a need to respect both the spirit and the letter of the devolution settlements for both Wales and Scotland. It seems to me that the motion goes a long way toward implementing that principle, which was enunciated in the Procedure Committee's report.
Because the experience in Wales is so often conflated with and subsumed in that of Scotland, I sometimes wonder whether the penny has dropped that the Welsh model of devolution is significantly different from the Scottish. It differs in two ways: first, primary legislative power in respect of Wales remains in Westminster, even in those areas of responsibility where some measure of power has been devolved to Cardiff; and, secondly, the Welsh method of devolution as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998 could be characterised as "horizontal" in that, even in devolved matters, some secondary legislative and executive powers remain with the Secretary of State for Wales or other Secretaries of State, or are exercised concurrently.
My view, which is shared by many in the Welsh political scene, is that the role of the Secretary of State for Wales will remain crucial if devolution is to be successful in Wales. However, his remaining responsibilities post-devolution are not clear cut. I agree with the Procedure Committee that the Secretary of State's responsibilities will be open to "varying interpretation", although that is perhaps an understatement.
The Procedure Committee recommended and the Government accepted that rules on the orderliness of questions ought also to govern the question of appropriate subjects for Adjournment debates, so the motion is far from being of solely academic interest to Back Benchers representing Welsh constituencies. I note that there are no rules at all with regard to oral supplementaries. Perhaps it would be rather difficult to prescribe rules in that regard.
The preamble to the motion declares the basic principle that no questions should be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament, the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Welsh Assembly. That is fine and it is to be expected. It is in accordance with the spirit and the letter of devolution, but the motion refers to certain important exceptions, some of which were mentioned by the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young).
The first exception is questions that seek information on subjects on which the UK Government are empowered to require information from the devolved body. That is a rather wide exception; I shall give an illustrative example. Section 123 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 includes a catch-all provision that states:
Where it appears to the Treasury that any information in the possession or under the control of the Assembly is required for the exercise of any function by the Treasury, the Treasury may require the Assembly to provide the information to the Treasury in such form as the Treasury may reasonably specify.
In my view, and it may occur to other hon. Members, that raises the question whether, in the light of section 123, Welsh Members of Parliament are entitled to ask questions about how the Welsh block, as it used to be called, or the departmental expenditure limit, as it is now called, is spent. Are we entitled to ask specific questions about how the Assembly determines the Budget, bearing in mind that presumably, those are questions that, under section 123, the UK Treasury is empowered to ask?
I shall deal briefly with the other exceptions. The exception under paragraph (b)(i) relates to matters that
are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament".
That is wide in its ambit and somewhat vague, to say the least. I wonder whether it provides the guidance and clarity that hon. Members seek in order to do their job.
Sub-paragraph (ii) deals with matters that are subject to
a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive".
I endorse the view expressed by others that it would be entirely right and proper for the House to debate the concordat and the memorandum of understanding. That, too, is extremely wide.
Paragraph 23 of the memorandum of understanding refers to the Joint Ministerial Committee that is to be established. The terms of reference of that Committee are described, inter alia, as follows:
To consider non-devolved matters which impinge on devolved responsibilities, and devolved matters which impinge on non-devolved responsibilities".
The question is obvious. Given that the exception refers to
the operation of a concordat"—
I note that the wording on the Order Paper differs somewhat from the Procedure Committee's recommendation—this exception again is rather wide and vague.
I endorse the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire with regard to sub-paragraph (iii). What is "an official interest"? We ought to know, and guidance should be provided to the Table Office.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I press my hon. Friend on a minor point? I understand that Welsh and Scottish Members want to maximise their right to ask questions in the House about matters relating to Wales and Scotland. If that is their intention, why does my hon. Friend seek to tie Ministers down and make it more difficult for hon. Members, including himself, to ask questions? I do not understand the process through which he is taking us.

Mr. Thomas: I am seeking clarity and a degree of certainty, to allow us to do our job and adjust our practices appropriately. That is what is important. I speak as someone who for many years has been a strong campaigner for devolution.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: My hon. Friend seeks clarity. If we define the circumstances precisely, my hon. Friend, who is a lawyer, will know that, by the definitions that will have to be laid down, we will effectively be limiting the right of hon. Members to ask questions, as he wishes. I am sorry to press him—

Mr. Thomas: Ultimately, devolution raises some thorny procedural issues. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) is to be congratulated on wrestling with some of those issues. I do not pretend that the Government can give definitive answers, and I expect that the Government will wish to follow the strong recommendation of the Procedure Committee that there should be a thorough review of the issues, in the light of experience. That is my concluding point.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman was generous enough to be complimentary about the Committee that I chair, and we are grateful for that. Do we not need to limit the questions that can be asked, so that we avoid antagonising the devolved Assembly in Wales and the devolved Parliament in Scotland? We cannot be seen in this House to be dealing with matters that this House has rightly devolved to Edinburgh and Cardiff.

Mr. Thomas: Precisely. We must be true to the spirit and the letter of devolution. I return to the unhappy experience that we had recently with Welsh oral questions. I am anxious to maintain the good name of the House and avoid such confusion. I simply seek a little more guidance and clarity, realising that it may be unrealistic to expect it. We shall have to revisit the subject in the light of experience. I do not necessarily expect definitive answers to the points that I have raised from my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary when he responds for the Government. Clearly, the matter will need to be reviewed.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: I speak as a member of the Procedure Committee, but I do not want it to be assumed that everything that I say is strictly in accordance with the views expressed in the Committee's

report. We should acknowledge straight away that we need to make the changes set out in the motion and that, broadly speaking, they cover the right territory in the right way. I hope that the House will approve the changes.
I shall spend a minute or two on the implications of the remarks of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). He was trying to balance the interests of Members in this House and their legitimate desire to hold the Government of the United Kingdom to account, and in the case of Welsh Members, to defend the interests of their constituents, with the legitimate concern to ensure that the Assembly in Wales and the Parliament in Scotland are allowed to hold their Governments to account in their own way. It is fair and proper for the House to have regard to their sensitivities and needs, as well as to its own needs. The motion does that, to a reasonable extent.
I am not persuaded by what the hon. Member for Clwyd, West said about the need for a more precisely regulated framework for questions. I have a number of points to make about that.
Precision may be achieved when cases are made, but trying to achieve it at this stage would constrain Members from asking certain questions. It would be better to have one or two test cases, and to search for ultimate tidiness at stage I would be a mistake. Members of the House are persistent and ingenious—one has only to consider the way in which Prime Minister's Question Time has evolved, if that is the right word. Some might say that it has degenerated, but it has a certain formulaic approach that is designed to bypass any of the rules that the House might otherwise have in place so one asks the Prime Minister about his engagements.
I have a feeling that, before long, certain formulas will be devised by which any Member of the House will ask any question he chooses about anything happening in Scotland or Wales. However undesirable that may be thought to be in theory, Members will find a way of achieving it. Trying to devise at this stage a set of rules or a formula that would prevent that from happening would be to search for the holy grail—or possibly the unholy grail, depending on one's particular point of view.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West made a further suggestion. He said, with some regret, that he thinks it is probably not possible to devise rules covering oral supplementaries. I should think not, and the possibility of having such rules in place is somewhat dubious to say the least. I also think that the Table Office does rather a good job in the House, although I cannot be the only Member who regards submitting a question to it without at least one word of what I have suggested being changed as a major success. It will be able to interpret the rules in the spirit in which they are being put before the House and, again, undue prescription will not be terribly helpful.
What we have done is about the best job available in the circumstances. It has given us a set of words with which we can defend the House from any charge of interference from our Scottish and Welsh parliamentary colleagues, by saying, "We have rules that prevent our Members in the United Kingdom Parliament from interfering." We have the book of rules to show as our defence and, at the same time, the rules are sufficiently flexible for Members of the House, in practice, to do exactly what they like. To me, that seems to be a good balance.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I agree with my hon. Friend the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) that we cannot at this moment expect to have hard and fast rules concerning the responsibilities of the Assemblies, the Scottish Parliament and this Parliament or the representatives in those legislatures.
I say to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas), I fell off the edge of the list of speakers last Thursday. The hon. Gentleman's report is very fine. For example, I agree with paragraph 37, which argues for informal contacts between Members of the different Assemblies and Parliaments, and since 1 July I have argued that case to the Convenor of the Local Government Committee in the Edinburgh Parliament. We need "official interest" to he defined because there are responsibilities that, to my mind, are not mutually exclusive—for example, to the Scottish Parliament or this Parliament. By and large, I shall confine my remarks to Northern Ireland and Scotland.
A clearer groove is provided by paragraph (c) of the motion, which refers to a question that
presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.
The example I gave earlier was prompted by a challenge I made to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary during the passage of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. I suggested that it is not up to this Parliament to amend exclusively Scottish Acts of Parliament through that legislation. We are in a grey area here, and I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that, this week, a Member of the Scottish Parliament has tabled two questions concerning the Home Secretary's decision to amend section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968 and sections in other Scottish Acts. Am I right to think that, although my right hon. Friend has administrative powers here, the Scottish Parliament has the power to amend the Immigration and Asylum Bill again, when it becomes an Act, in respect of three Scottish Acts?
When the First Minister addressed the Scottish Parliament on 1 July, he said that it had the right to amend some legislation enacted by this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Minister may not be familiar with section 12 of the 1968 Act, but may I use it to give a brief illustration of the Home Secretary's administrative powers? It allows social work directors to assist financially people in desperate need who face a real domestic emergency, and I have used it several times to help poverty-stricken constituents. I have approached my local social work department to argue that moneys should be given to such people.
We in this Parliament are changing that Scottish Act, but this is a grey area. The Immigration and Asylum Bill is obviously a responsibility of the Home Secretary, but I would have thought that those three Scottish Acts could be re-amended, despite what happens to the asylum legislation in this place. There will be conflicts and stresses between this Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the two Assemblies, whenever the Northern Ireland Assembly gets off the mark.
The motion refers to questioning Ministers
in areas in which they retain administrative powers.

I have the right to question the Home Secretary on those matters, but do I have the right to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on the implementation of those clauses in the Immigration and Asylum Bill that are exclusively concerned with Scottish matters? To whom do I go?
I have tabled a question to the Home Secretary for answer next week on that very issue. Four or five months ago, I said to him that I thought he was acting ultra vires in respect of those Scottish Acts. Of course, they were passed by the House. The 1968 Act was put through by the late Willie Ross; it is a brilliant piece of legislation, but it has nothing whatever to do with the rest of the United Kingdom. It is a Scottish Act.
I agree that we have to maintain compatibility and mutuality between those Acts of Parliament, but who am I to question about those elements of the Immigration and Asylum Bill—the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Home Secretary? I think that the Home Secretary is out of order in amending those Acts. If he is not, I sincerely hope that the Scottish Parliament will be able to amend the asylum legislation. This is an important issue, particularly as regards people in need. Whether we are discussing the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 or the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, there are many grey areas. Ultimately, when legal challenges are made, those questions will have to be determined not by the judicial committee of the Privy Council, but by a constitutional court.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: The case that the hon. Gentleman makes in relation to Scotland is a lesser case with regard to Wales, because we are dealing with secondary rather than primary legislation. However, in interpreting ambiguous areas of primary or secondary education, the courts have reference to what has been said in this place, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. To that extent, if a conflict is possible, it is extremely important to know where authority lies.

Dr. Godman: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Before we have a constitutional court, perhaps we need a constitutional committee to deal with those problems, which I believe arise with the Bill that is now in the other place. In addition to the informal contacts, which the hon. Member for Macclesfield mentions in paragraph 37 of his report, contact needs to be made between the Parliaments and Assemblies at a level below ministerial. Back Benchers should be able to discuss those matters with our colleagues in other Assemblies. If things go well in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot discuss Northern Ireland in the context of this motion. Moreover, the hon. Gentleman is going a little wide when he talks about liaison. I have listened carefully, because I know that he is trying to make a case in relation to the last part of the motion, but he should not stray wider than that.

Dr. Godman: I am sincerely grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for referring to Northern Ireland. I was simply going to say that we shall soon debate a similar motion if Senator Mitchell and those obdurate negotiators come to some agreement this week.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the


problems of interpretation, which he has rightly brought up, arise only if this House insists on legislating on matters that are devolved to Scotland and on using its powers under clause 28(7) of the Scotland Act 1998 to do so? The way to avoid interpretation problems is for this House to leave it up to the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly to take on any consequential changes—or not, as they wish.

Dr. Godman: I could not agree more. As regards assisting people in need, we should be willing to trust the representatives in Edinburgh and Cardiff if they choose to implement legislation differently. We should accept that there will be differences.
Let me return to the question of concordats and the memorandum of understanding. I have an abiding interest in the fishing industry, which is where conflicts will arise. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and I have the honour of being honorary presidents of the Clyde Fishermen's Association. No one can challenge the fact that the Scottish fishing industry is far more important to Scotland than the English fishing industry is to England. Paragraph B3.12 on page 20 of the memorandum of understanding says:
Ministers and officials of the devolved administrations should have a role to play in relevant Council meetings, and other negotiations with EU partners.
I take it that we shall have a concordat on the fishing industry and other devolved matters, which will entail, among many other things, attendance at Fishery Council meetings in Brussels. However, I do not want to see a junior Minister there from the Edinburgh Parliament. Although my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) knows a thing or two about fishing, he will not be Minister for a lifetime. It is therefore important that clear guidelines are given.
The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is the lead Department. What I seek, in terms of concordats, is the right to question Ministers in this House on the implementation of decisions taken in Brussels by Fisheries Ministers. Many people, especially north of the border, wrongly believe that MAFF is an English Department and that Scotland now has a fisheries department that is equal to that English Department. However, that is not the case because Ministers in MAFF negotiate on behalf of our fishermen. That is an administrative power. As regards the operation of what I might call a fisheries concordat, discussions need to take place between Ministers here and in the Edinburgh Parliament, but Back Benchers should also be involved in such discussions on behalf of our fishermen constituents.
Everyone in the fishing industry knows that a concordat on safety is not needed because, traditionally and historically, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is responsible for the occupational safety of our fishermen. It always has been, and I agree that that is where it should stay—until we get an independent Scotland, which is many years away. However, on quotas and total allowable catches, this House is responsible for questioning the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I just wonder where the Secretary of State for Scotland comes into this.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with fascination. That question has

been put to the Secretary of State for Scotland on repeated occasions, including last Thursday night, but he appears unable to clarify what his role will be.

Dr. Godman: I do not accept that for one moment, and the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so. He is being provocative in a parliamentary way.
I am raising a serious issue: will Scottish Members question the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food or the Secretary of State for Scotland on these matters? If the Ministry is the lead Department, I want to be treated as an equal when I get to my feet to voice the concerns of my fishermen.
There should be a memorandum of understanding on the relevant constituency roles of Members of this place and Members of the Scottish Parliament. Responsibilities have changed. In response to the question put to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West, I say that responsibilities have changed dramatically—for instance in health and education, which are now the responsibility of MSPs. However, even in health, a Minister might have an official interest in a health matter where the lead is taken by the Department of Health in Westminster. For example, if a decision is taken to abolish the use of electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of depression, the Scottish Health Minister may take the lead, and we would have something to say in this place.
I welcome the motion. I agree with the Minister and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove that we cannot have hard and fast rules, but it is important that Ministers respect our interest in matters that fall between reserved and devolved powers.

Mr. Alasdair Morgan: I want briefly to raise just one matter of interpretation—not nearly as many as the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman). My hon. Friend the Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney) raised this issue in the debate last Thursday, and it has been partially alluded to by the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas). The first exception to the rules on questions is that a question can be tabled if it seeks information that the UK Government are empowered to require of the devolved Executive. I accept that that is reasonable in a devolved system—which is not one that I would choose. It is reasonable that if the UK Government are empowered to ask for such information, Members of the House should equally be empowered to ask questions about it.
However, we must consider that rule in conjunction with clause 96 of the Scotland Act 1998. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West referred to the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998, which deals with questions that the Treasury can ask of the devolved legislatures. He said that the clause in the Government of Wales Act was fairly broadly drawn, but it is narrowly drawn compared with the clause in the Scotland Act.
The clause in the Government of Wales Act refers to the Treasury asking for information for the purposes of the operation of the Treasury, or some such phrase. Clause 96 in the Scotland Act makes no such stipulation; it simply says:
The Treasury may require the Scottish Ministers to provide, within such period as the Treasury may reasonably specify, such information, in such form and prepared in such manner, as the Treasury may reasonably specify.


Those qualifications are to do with the period or the form in which the information must be provided. There are no qualifications on the subject matter of the information for which the Treasury can ask.
All hon. Members realise, I am sure, that the Treasury is a reasonable Department and would not possibly ask Scottish Ministers to provide information that was not germane to the running of the Treasury. I suspect that that clause enables the Treasury to ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information that it wants. That drives a coach and horses through these amendments to Standing Orders. If the Treasury can ask the Scottish Parliament to provide any information, Members of the House should be able to ask questions about any information for which the Treasury might ask—not information for which it has asked, but for which theoretically it might ask in the future.
We need clarification of this issue. Will the Minister reassure me? I do not see how he can, because the problem is not with the amendments to Standing Orders, but with clause 96 of the Scotland Act and the equivalent clause in the Government of Wales Act 1998.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove argued that hon. Members will always find a way round the prescriptions that we are trying to put into Standing Orders. What on earth are we doing here if we know that, whatever we say, a way will be found to get round the amendments? I would rather waste my time doing something else than debating an issue of purely academic interest. I would welcome the Minister's reassurances on this matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I am pleased that colleagues who sat through the long debate on Thursday and did not get an opportunity to speak have recycled their speeches tonight, albeit on narrower points. In a sense, the narrower the point becomes, the more difficult it is to answer. There has been a curious tension in this short debate between those who want greater clarity and certainty and those from the grey camp who appreciate the benefit of this field being wide open so that discussions continue and practice develops. I would be foolish to try to resolve all the issues that have been raised.
We should listen to the voices of those who want greater opportunities rather than those who want greater prescriptiveness. There will clearly need to be a balance, and the Procedure Committee considered that balance carefully. The Committee, in its report, made important strides forward. It acknowledged the need to keep this matter under review. That may be the only point of clarity that we can achieve tonight, but it is an important first stake in the ground.
A second important stake in the ground is the recognition that this is a two-way process. Devolution is still in its infancy, and we must develop appropriate relationships with colleagues, whether at ministerial or Assembly level. As my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) said, we also need to go below that and talk to Members of the Assemblies.
It is incumbent on all of us to set a pattern of good behaviour. It is also important to consider any responses we receive. A good relationship is like a good marriage:

we may have flaming rows, but we stay together and keep discussing matters. The question of who does what and what belongs to each other is in that area. We should allow the process to develop, discuss the issues, and be honest with each other.
A specific question was asked about the effect of the proposed motion on questions to Ministers. All that can be said at this stage is that it provides the basis for the Chair to decide whether a question is in order. It reflects the current rules of the House, modified to take account of devolution. There will always be grey areas. Our whole proceedings contain grey areas, and we are always trying to define responsibility and to find the right answers.
The Chair uses discretion in these matters. It is important that we protect the integrity of the Chair and preserve that discretion. However, ultimately a pattern will develop over a period that will set precedents in the House.

Mr. Grieve: I may be pre-empting the Minister's comments, but, with particular reference to the issue raised by the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), I noted from the Order Paper that an answer was supposed to be published today—I do not know whether it has been—to a question about the executive functions of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Will the Minister refer to that when he seeks to answer the questions that have been raised?

Mr. Tipping: I can make no reference to that, because I have not seen the answer to the question, but I will make inquiries.
A number of Members asked why the terms of paragraph (b)(ii) of the motion differ slightly from the wording in the Procedure Committee's report. The straight answer is that time overtook us: the report was agreed before the memorandum of understanding and the concordat were published. All matters, whether devolved or not, are in theory covered by the concordat. The original wording would therefore have enabled questions to be asked about all devolved matters, but the revised wording makes it clear that questions can be asked about the mechanics of liaison with the devolved Administrations. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde earlier, the process rather than the outcome is under examination.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Morgan) raised a number of issues relating to innocent financial matters. Would the House still be able to debate expenditure in Scotland and Wales? Again, I feel that this involves a grey area, which will require testing. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said that the House contained imaginative characters who would find new devices, but I think that it has been acknowledged, essentially, that the block grant will remain the responsibility of the two Secretaries of State. That means that the Estimates will be approved by the House, and that there will be ample opportunities for Members to discuss them. The real debate—the real area of potential disagreement—will, I think, focus on how the money is subsequently distributed, on a different basis. I should like to be able to give a clear answer now, but I think we shall have to work on this.
My hon. Friend also made an important point, which accorded with what he said about having good working relationships with colleagues in different bodies


representing the same area. One point of conflict is likely to be the way in which constituency correspondence is handled. Some hon. Members are smiling. I am aware that this has already given rise to one or two flashpoints, and it is another matter on which we shall need to work, but guidance has already been issued to Departments.
The general expectation is that constituency correspondence on non-devolved matters should be routed through a Westminster Member of Parliament, and that letters about devolved matters should be dealt with through a Member of the devolved legislature. If a Member of the devolved legislature writes to a United Kingdom Minister about a non-devolved matter, a substantive reply will, I think, be sent. I do not think that there is any belief that a substantive reply will have to be sent, but the advice in the letter from Ministers suggests that in future the constituent who has raised an issue relating to a reserved matter ought to raise it through a Westminster Member of Parliament. That will require a good deal of give and take. There will be difficulties, but if we are determined to make the process work it is incumbent on us all to do our best.

Mr. Wigley: It is clearly incumbent on us to do our best, but I think it unfair to expect constituents to know exactly where the demarcation lies. That applies particularly in Wales, where the legislative function may lie in Westminster while the Executive and secondary legislative function may lie in Cardiff. That must be a matter of give and take between members.

Mr. Tipping: That is a strong point. It must be recognised that, while we struggle with the issues here, constituents may have greater problems in resolving them. I have always believed that we are not the fount of all wisdom: occasionally we get things wrong, and a good deal of common sense exists among the electorate. I agree that we shall have to work at it, and that there will have to be a good deal of give and take.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: If a United Kingdom Department received a letter from, say, a Member of the Scottish Parliament about a reserved matter, would there be any objection to a substantive reply being sent to the MSP, but a copy being sent automatically to the Member of the United Kingdom Parliament representing the area in which the MSP had his or her constituency?

Mr. Tipping: There might be a good deal of sense in that, but I feel that we must respect confidentiality. Although in principle I would like to support that idea, I think that it involves clear issues of confidentiality and respect. I hope that, as we all become more accustomed to the procedures, we shall make further progress.

Dr. Godman: I do not think that we have publicised sufficiently the responsibilities of MSPs and MPs in Scotland. Constituents, especially elderly constituents, may be confused. I am currently dealing with a health case involving a constituent, who has told me that she has no desire to consult the local MSP. There are four MSPs

in my area, so it is a complicated matter, and I think that better publicity would help constituents to knock on the right door.

Mr. Tipping: One answer might be to consult the guidance note that will shortly be placed in the Library. It will set out as clearly as possible the division between reserved and devolved matters under devolution legislation. I know that many of my colleagues use the Library research papers as a way of informing members of the general public. I accept, however, that much work remains to be done.
The right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) asked for a definition of official duties and official interests, and I should like to be able to give him a clear example. Let me attempt to explain how I think the system will work.
It seems to me that if Ministers of the Crown are taking an interest in various items and are going around the country making statements and speeches and, in a sense, trying to influence policy-making, Back Benchers will notice that. I feel that such Ministers would be showing an "official interest". Again, this is a grey area, but technically they should not be going beyond their ministerial responsibilities. If they are unwise enough to speak out of turn and take an official interest in matters that are not technically their preserve in terms of a reserved-devolved list, I do not think that it would be unreasonable for Back-Bench Members to use their wits, and the resources of the Table Office, to question them. As I have said, however, it is a grey area, and one to which I am sure we shall return.
That brings me back to where I started, and to where the Procedure Committee left off. These are difficult issues. As I said at the outset, this is not the first occasion on which we have discussed devolution, and I am sure that it will not be the last. Many Members on both sides of the House have anxieties. They appreciate and can identify the conflicts. We need to be honest with each other and to admit that there are difficulties and conflicts. However, we have decided on the current route and we should all use our best endeavours to make the system work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, subject always to the discretion of the Chair, and in addition to the established rules of order on the form and content of questions, questions may not be tabled on matters for which responsibility has been devolved by legislation to the Scottish Parliament or the National Assembly for Wales unless the question:

(a) seeks information which the UK Government is empowered to require of the devolved executive, or
(b) relates to matters which:

(i) are included in legislative proposals introduced or to be introduced in the UK Parliament,
(ii) are concerned with the operation of a concordat or other instrument of liaison between the UK Government and the devolved executive, or
(iii) UK Government ministers have taken an official interest in, or

(c) presses for action by UK ministers in areas in which they retain administrative powers.

Orders of the Day — Select Committees (Devolution)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended as follows:

In line 22, to leave out the words "and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only" and insert the words "and not within paragraph (10) of this order"
In line 23, at the end, to insert the words "any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and not including"——[Mr. Tipping.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words "Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General))"; and
In item 16 of the table, in column 2, after "Welsh Office" add the words "(Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))"

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I agree with the motion as far as it goes. I put down one marker: the Procedure Committee felt that the role of the Scottish, Welsh and, I hope, in due course, Northern Ireland territorial Select Committees should go further than the current Standing Order, or even the amendment to the Standing Order. It appears to the Procedure Committee that the work of the territorial Committees for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be unnecessarily limited if they cannot go further in inquiring into matters that will have a major UK impact on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The Secretary of State for Scotland, who I am delighted to see in his place, at one stage had responsibility for transport. One can imagine matters relating to transport having a major impact on Scotland. Therefore, the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs might want to take evidence from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It was the Procedure Committee's view that, if we were to have excellent co-operation between the devolved areas of the UK and the UK Parliament, the territorial Select Committees, which we recommended should remain, should no longer fall under the current Standing Order, but be able to take a broader perspective.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman)—I am glad that I have got the constituency right; it is an important constituency in Scotland—raised a matter relating to agriculture. Clearly, in that instance, it would be important for the Scottish Affairs Committee to be able to take evidence from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I have already referred to transport.
I put that down as a marker. Last week, both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Leader of the House talked about flexibility and leaving doors open for

future discussion and amendment. I hope that the Government and the House will change the Standing Orders to enable the territorial Select Committees on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to adopt a broader perspective to ensure that the interests of all parts of the UK are properly taken into account.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Some months ago, during the passage of the Scotland Bill through this place, I questioned the advisability of retaining the Select Committees on Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland and, indeed, the Grand Committees, once the two Assemblies and the Scottish Parliament were up and running and had developed institutions and procedures of their own, but I acknowledge the good sense of what the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has said. If the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food comes back to the House from the annual negotiations in Brussels concerning total allowable catches and quotas, it might be useful for him or her to be questioned on behalf of Scottish fishing communities by the Select Committee.
I am doing a headstand, but I believe that, in the long run, the Committees should go. We should devise other means of cross-examining Ministers and of carrying out our work on behalf of our constituents—I am talking about Scotland, of course.
The recommendation in paragraph 21 of the Procedure Committee report has been honourably adopted by the Government. The recommendation is that
such Committees liaise with colleagues in the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly".
The motion says:
In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words 'Scotland Office'"—
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is here—
'(including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament'".
Let us look at what is being deleted in terms of the examination of the Scottish Office, the administration of and expenditure by the Advocate General's Department and the policy functions that are discharged by the Advocate General.
Perhaps in the short run the policy makes sense, especially in light of what I said earlier about the need for Scots Members of the UK Parliament to liaise and to develop relations with Members of the Scottish Parliament. It appears that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs will act as some kind of liaison committee with Committees in the Scottish Parliament. I wonder—the Minister will have to write to me, of course—whether discussions have taken place with the Executive in the Scottish Parliament concerning a similar Committee being set up in that Parliament to negotiate with the Scottish Affairs Committee in its role as a liaison committee.
I remind the Minister that several Committees in the Scottish Parliament are concerned with the functions that are the responsibility of the First Minister and his Executive. Therefore, I should like to know whether there is a likelihood of a liaison committee being set up in the Assemblies, particularly the Scottish Parliament, so that the relevant two Committees can get together to deal with matters that appear to be reserved, yet are devolved in some respects.
I am sorry to come back to the fishing industry, but it is an important matter. In relation to Brussels, it will be dealt with by a concordat, presumably. I am glad to accept that, but it seems that issues may be raised within both the Scottish Parliament and UK Parliament, involving the Secretary of State for Scotland in the latter case, of course, where we need to liaise closely with our colleagues in Edinburgh.
I should like to know what discussions have taken place with the body in Edinburgh concerning the important matter of maintaining good relations with the Scottish Parliament. It is not a bad idea for the Scottish Affairs Committee to perform that function in the short and medium term. That important aspect of the Select Committee's modus operandi might be overtaken in time with the setting up of a council of the isles, where matters of mutual interest will be debated by representatives of all the Assemblies and Parliaments. Until that comes along, despite my view of the Scottish Affairs Committee and Scottish Grand Committee, we will, as the Minister rightly said, inevitably have to review such matters, perhaps annually. Perhaps the Standing Order will have to be amended again in a year, when our Scottish Parliament will be a year older and, I suspect, our colleagues in that Parliament will—vis-à-vis the United Kingdom Parliament—be even more jealous of their powers.
I should like the Select Committees and the Grand Committees to go eventually, but think that, in these very early days of what can only be described as a form of asymmetrical devolution, the Procedure Committee and the Government have acted very sensibly in their proposals. There are bound to be difficulties, conflicts and tensions, and to say otherwise would only be to act the daft laddie. I know from my discussions with the convener of the Edinburgh Parliament's Local Government Committee that there are differences of view on those issues. However, I believe that the Scottish Affairs Committee, playing the type of role that I have described, could enable both Parliaments to avoid, reduce or eliminate some of the tensions and conflicts that are inevitable in the early days of devolution.
Some months ago, I said in the House that there will be not only intended, but unintended consequences of such remarkable constitutional change. In the short run, the Scottish Affairs Committee will have an important role to play in dealing with Members of the Scottish Parliament.

Mr. Martyn Jones: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) in his statement that the Select Committees should continue in the short and medium terms. However, in the long term, I should like there to be a change in the Select Committees, as we should have members of the National Assembly for Wales and of the Scottish Parliament on a Joint Committee. I think that that would probably be a better way forward.
Last week, we debated in full the Procedure Committee's report. I agree absolutely with the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) that that report was an extremely good one. He has also said, and I agree with him, that the motion that we are now debating is good in so far as it goes. However, I think that there are some problems with the motion, which I shall illustrate with an example—although not the one that I used in last week's debate, as that was perhaps not good enough.
Currently, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, which I am delighted to chair, is considering the matter of structural funds. Although the matter of structural funds in Wales is dealt with by the Assembly, public expenditure cover and match funding will have to come either from the Welsh block or from central Government funding. I shall not go any further into that example, as I am sure that I would be ruled out of order if I did.
The problem with the Standing Order is that it will not compel the Secretary of State—or, in the case of structural funds, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—to appear before the Select Committee, although it is necessary for the Committee to be able to interrogate various Departments on specific policy matters. Conversely, the Secretary of State for Wales—whom the Committee will be able to continue to call before us—does not have any role in policy making, in either devolved or non-devolved matters.
The Select Committee will be examining cross-border issues, such as structural funds. If we cannot invite a Secretary of State to appear before us—and have a reasonable expectation that he or she will do so—to discuss policy on non-devolved issues, we shall be operating at a disadvantage. I do not think that the Government want Select Committees to work at such a disadvantage, because I believe that Ministers want Select Committees to work and to make devolved government work in Wales and Scotland.
I accept that the Standing Order amendments will almost certainly be passed today. I do not object to the amendments, but think that they are good so far as they go. However, I should like a statement from the Minister, if he would be so kind, that Ministers and departmental representatives will be expected to appear before the Welsh Select Committee and—provided that the Committee makes a case—to give their views on policy issues concerning legislation on England and Wales that exclusively affects Wales. I shall be grateful if the Minister will deal with that matter.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): Hon. Members have made supportive remarks on the roles and responsibilities of Select Committees and, to a lesser extent, of Grand Committees. Hon. Members seem to recognise that—in the short and middle term, although one or two hon. Members think not in the long term—there will be a continuing role for those bodies. The Government clearly believe that, at this stage, the Committees provide flexibility and serve as vehicles enabling us to deal with a changing situation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who is Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, spoke about an issue that his Committee is currently considering—a review of structural funds—and a desire to have the Chancellor of the Exchequer give evidence. I should say that this is not a new debate. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) and some other hon. Members will know that there has long been a real dialogue between Departments and Select Committees seeking to get Ministers before them, to answer questions and to be grilled on their ministerial responsibilities. Clearly, with both the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and the Select Committee on Welsh


Affairs, the relevant Secretary of State will be the key point of contact, and the strong voice of Scotland and of Wales in both the Cabinet and the Westminster Parliament. It will be important for Ministers to give evidence to those Committees.
Over the years, however, there has never been a compulsory mechanism, forcing Ministers to appear before Select Committees. Over the years, various schemes have been intended to ensure that Ministers do give evidence. My expectation, however, is that things will not change overly. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South said, if a real and a strong case can be made, quite properly, there will be an expectation that Ministers should respond and give evidence.
My hon. Friend is right to say that the order does not introduce that. All that I am at pains to say to him is that there is nothing new in his argument. We have talked about this being a two-way process that needs good will and adult politics. Ministers would be well advised to heed requests for their attendance. My hon. Friend need have no doubt that the report of this debate will be on the desk of my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary. I hope that it helps his case in the short term.
The hon. Member for Macclesfield also talked about the need for a wider discussion. It is important that the relevant Secretary of State should be the touchstone and key point of contact with the Select Committees, but Select Committees and Grand Committees will also want to see other Ministers. The hon. Gentleman mentioned transport. I come from a rural area. I should like an opportunity to press Treasury Ministers on the fuel escalator, as would some of my constituents. Those in the rural parts of Scotland might want the Select Committee to press a case with a Treasury Minister on transport policy and the fuel escalator. A similar case could be made on excise duty on Scottish whisky. The Secretary of State is an important point of contact, but the matter is the responsibility of the Treasury and a strong case could be made. There would be anticipation that Ministers should respond.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for the guidance that he is giving to members of the Government in all Departments, albeit the touchstones will be the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. I hope that they will use their good offices to ensure that if the territorial Select Committees want to tackle Ministers from other Departments of the United Kingdom Parliament, the process will be facilitated and encouraged.

Mr. Tipping: Despite what occasionally appears quite erroneously in the newspapers, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales want the process to work. They know that they cannot achieve that by themselves. They will use their considerable power and influence to ensure that other ministerial colleagues take part in the process.
In a sense, that is what my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) was asking. He has undergone a conversion on Select Committees and Grand Committees. He now believes that they can be helpful in the short term. He has also been helpful in

saying that the Scottish Affairs Committee could be a liaison device with the new Parliament. He asked me what discussions had taken place with the new Executive and the new Parliament about formalising that role. I will have to write to him about that. The new Parliament in Scotland is still in its infancy and coming to terms with its roles. It will be some time before we can achieve that. My hon. Friend asked for flexibility and a good working relationship. The model that he is putting forward is worth further exploration.

Dr. Godman: It is not so much a question of conversion as one of pragmatism. I said that the Select Committee had an important role to play in the short run. I want the development of the Council of the Isles, which will tackle matters of mutual concern and interest. That body might take on some of the duties and responsibilities of the Select Committees.

Mr. Tipping: The Council of the Isles is a new body in its infancy. If my hon. Friend wants me to look in my crystal ball and tell him the weather forecast, I think that the council will grow in influence and importance. We have to gauge the pace of change and work towards a goal.
My hon. Friend asked whether it would be possible to amend the orders in the future. The spirit of the debate has been to accept that these are new and difficult areas. We shall not be renewing the orders annually, but, as night follows day, it will be necessary at times to change the Standing Orders. If it is in the interests of making progress and making the process work, there will be no hesitation, and efforts will be made to find the time to ensure that that happens.
With that, I hope that the House will approve the order.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee)) be amended as follows:

In line 22, to leave out the words "and not required to be laid before or to be subject to proceedings in this House only" and insert the words "and not within paragraph (10) of this order"
In line 23, at the end, to insert the words "any statutory instrument made by a member of the Scottish Executive or by the National Assembly for Wales unless it is required to be laid before Parliament or either House of Parliament and not including".

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:

In item 12 of the table, to leave out the words in column 2 and insert the words "Scotland Office (including (i) relations with the Scottish Parliament and (ii) administration and expenditure of the offices of the Advocate General for Scotland (but excluding individual cases and advice given within government by the Advocate General))"; and
In item 16 of the table, in column 2, after "Welsh Office" add the words "(Office of the Secretary of State for Wales (including relations with the National Assembly for Wales))".—[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — ADVOCATE GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 87 (Attendance of law officers and ministers in standing committees) be amended as follows:

In line 1, to leave out the words "the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland" and insert "the Advocate General and Mr. Solicitor General".

Ordered,
That Standing Order No. 149 (Committee on Standards and Privileges) be amended as follows:

In line 58, to leave out the words "the Lord Advocate, Mr. Solicitor General and Mr. Solicitor General for Scotland" and insert "the Advocate General and Mr. Solicitor General".—.[Mr. Tipping.]

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at the sitting on Tuesday 26th October, paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments) shall apply to proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr. William Hague as if that day were one of the Opposition Days allotted under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 14 (Arrangement of public business).—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Orders of the Day — Armed Forces (Children's Education)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]

Mr. Bob Russell: I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) to her first appearance at the Dispatch Box since her appointment in the summer. I am delighted that her debut is in a debate on the subject of state education for children of armed forces personnel—an issue which, while it is of considerable importance, is not party politically contentious.
This country owes a great deal to those who serve in our armed forces. Sadly, as a nation, we are short-changing the children of our soldiers, sailors and airmen and airwomen who attend schools with a large number of the offspring of service personnel. There are around 85,000 of school age.
Although this debate—quite rightly—will receive a response from an Education Minister, I must stress that the matters that I raise have an important bearing also on the interests of those serving in our armed forces. Therefore, I hope that what is said tonight will be drawn to the attention of Defence Ministers.
Representing a garrison town, I see the consequences of a numerically under-strength Army having to deal with an increasing number of commitments. The overstretch, including back-to-back tours of duty in various parts of the world—keeping the peace in Bosnia and Kosovo are the two obvious ones at present, but there are others, both past and on-going—that this causes, coupled with the need for regular training and other duties, means that many of our soldiers are absent from their families for months on end.
In many respects, their children are brought up for long periods as if they were from one-parent families. At such times, virtually every pupil in a school can come from a home with only one parent living there—a proportion considerably greater than would be found in just about every other school around the country.
Retention of skilled and professional military personnel is an increasing worry for our armed forces. Large numbers of people are leaving the services because of family unhappiness caused by the overstretch commitments. Education concerns about their children can be a contributory factor for a service man or woman in deciding to leave the armed forces. If joined-up government is a concept that operates in practice, the Department for Education and Employment—wearing both its hats—must consider defence matters when it comes to the education and well-being of service personnel.
The situation is not, of course, a new one, although it has taken on greater significance in recent years. However, perhaps it is only now that it has come to national prominence. I am delighted to announce that, next month, the National Association of State Schools for Service Children—formed earlier this year at a meeting in Colchester which I had the privilege to attend—will be holding a conference in London.
I am advised that Education Ministers have declined to attend the conference. I regret that, and I hope that, after tonight's debate, that decision will be reconsidered.


The importance of the conference—entitled "A Fairer Deal for Forces Families"—warrants official ministerial recognition. The venue is within walking distance of this House. I am assured that it is on a safe route.
In welcoming the formation of the NASSSC, I wish to pay tribute to the pioneers—those schools in Colchester with a strong Army involvement who, in 1992, formed the Colchester Association of State Schools for Service Children. The schools involved are Kingsford infant and junior; St. Teresa's primary; St Michael's primary; Alderman Blaxill secondary; the splendidly named Montgomery infant and junior; and, from elsewhere in East Anglia, Wimbish and Debden primary schools.
The numbers of children from service families attending those schools range from almost one in five pupils at St. Teresa's Catholic school to 95 per cent. at St. Michael's.

Mr. Keith Simpson: I concur with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. In my constituency, Coltishall Airfield first school, which was built as a middle school, has 100 per cent. service children, and we are campaigning on their behalf to turn it back into a middle school, because many service personnel and their children are being disadvantaged.

Mr. Russell: That story is repeated in locations throughout the United Kingdom where there is a major military presence. St. Michael's school was on 99 per cent., but two non-military families moved in and knocked the figure down to 95 per cent.
Word of the Colchester association gradually spread to schools in other parts of the United Kingdom catering for children of service personnel and, in March, nearly 40 heads came to Colchester to form a national association and to discuss "issues of turbulence", which I am advised is the official description of the special problems with which such schools have to contend.
Essex local education authority acknowledges the unique requirements of schools with large numbers of children from Army families and does what it can to make additional provision from its tight budget. It has always been supportive of the particular needs of schools with service children and has provided the local association with a link officer; but not all LEAs follow that good example.
I invite the Minister to regard special additional funding for the turbulence factor in such schools as a national issue, not to be determined at the whim of individual LEAs. In fairness, they are already under considerable pressure when allocating resources for all the competing demands that are made on them.
The cost of defending the realm is met centrally. I suggest that the same principle should apply to the special education funding needed at schools that admit as pupils children of military personnel, simply because the geographic locations of military establishments that serve the whole nation are not governed by LEA boundaries.
Head teachers from the national association are deeply concerned about the extreme turbulence experienced by the schools and their pupils, as well as about target setting and benchmarking. A further concern is the time of year when regiments and other units move to new bases in

the United Kingdom or go overseas; and there is also the question of those returning to the UK. We are talking not about one family moving because a parent gets a new job, as happens from time to time in all schools, but about perhaps half the school population leaving in mid-term, to be replaced the next week by an equally large number of new pupils. That presents human and logistical problems with which no other kind of school has to contend.
At Colchester garrison, infantry regiments traditionally move after a posting of between two and four years. Next year, as a result of the recent formation of 16 Air Assault Brigade, two battalions of the Parachute Regiment will move from Aldershot to Colchester to replace the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment and 1st Battalion, Royal Scots. The massive pupil movements associated with the departure and arrival of the soldiers are set to take place in and around the period when the youngsters face their standard assessment tests and GCSEs.
One of the Colchester heads, Mr. Graham Eskell of Montgomery junior school, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment on 23 September, said:
This kind of disruption to children's education is dreadfully disruptive for schools and makes a complete mockery of the investment of time, energy and money that has been expended in the previous months. The impact upon the children themselves promises to be potentially traumatic. While you are making every effort to prevent parents taking their children out of school during the SATs weeks the kind of disruption outlined above bears at least equal scrutiny.
I would wish to stress that we have had tremendous support from our Army colleagues locally, and while local Military personnel are very well aware of the impact of movement at such an important time on children and families there would appear to be a significant lack of awareness at the very highest levels where strategic planning is taking place. The most sensible option as far as we are concerned would be that large strategic movements should only take place during the summer months once all the Key school examinations have been completed.
May I invite the Department for Education and Employment to pursue that suggestion with the Ministry of Defence?
I am sure that the Minister will concede that target setting is almost impossible for schools with large numbers of children from the armed forces. I am sure also that she will agree that heads of schools with a large turnover of pupils—where incoming pupils will replace pupils two or three times before a class of four-year-olds comes of secondary school age elsewhere in the UK or overseas—cannot produce viable targets as there are no national benchmark figures to enable them to make comparisons.
That was confirmed earlier this year when The Times Educational Supplement quoted a senior official of the Department for Education and Employment as saying:
It's difficult where you have got very high turbulence. How can you use benchmark data when you have service children who don't have free school meals? And how can you use teacher forecasts when two years' ahead it's going to be almost a different class? We accept it is almost impossible.
Assuming that the Minister agrees with those observations, will she also accept the findings of a survey conducted by the NASSSC, which stated that turbulence figures that show the percentage turnover of pupils each year should be used for benchmarking schools rather than free school meals? No allowance is made for pupil mobility when compiling these statistics. Why not?
An Oxfordshire primary school, for example, noted how its low level of free school meals put it in the upper reaches of the benchmarking tables. However, 60 per cent. of the pupils taking key stage 2 tests had not been there for key stage 1. There can be no argument that children's progress often slows after changing schools, and children of service personnel experience several changes.
A report in March to councillors in the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead stated that the children of soldiers were suffering through having their education disrupted by the uncertainty of Army life. It was said that some children were displaying problems caused by the frequent moves as their fathers were given new postings. The high turnover of pupils at one school meant that there were only four children in year 4 who had been there since the reception class. The report stated:
Some of the children display emotional and behavioural problems caused by changing school and home so often.
Head teacher Mrs. Valerie Clark of St. Michael's primary school, Colchester, where there are only nine pupils out of about 200 youngsters whose mother or father is not serving in the Army, tells me:
Our teachers work very hard and we do not want them to feel demoralised by inappropriate benchmarking or the setting of targets which may be unattainable if a cohort changes dramatically.
The Association totally supports the Government's initiatives to raise standards and to improve the quality of education for our pupils, but the present system does not fully recognise the special characteristics of schools which can have very mobile populations in them.
Target setting for a cohort is problematic when a significant percentage of each year group changes annually. With records from other schools often being variable, to put it mildly, making teacher assessments and predictions is difficult at best and useless at worst. The Government's White Paper, entitled "Excellence in Schools", makes no mention of pupil mobility, yet many of the policies pose particular problems for the high-mobility schools which children of service personnel attend.
Dr. Janet Dobson of the migration research unit at the department of geography, University college London, is undertaking a research project on pupil mobility which is funded by the Nuffield Foundation and the Department of Education and Employment. The Department therefore knows the situation, but what is being done urgently to address the need to give a fairer deal for forces' families?
Writing in The Times Educational Supplement in February this year about the response from heads to her call for information on how pupil mobility affects performance, Dr. Dobson said:
Schools close to Armed Forces' bases were described as having distinctive mobility characteristics in that large numbers of children could join or leave together at a particular time at the behest of a single employer and did so recurrently. In addition, individual families came and went for promotion or other reasons.
Dr. Dobson also observed:
Schools with large numbers of children from forces' families expressed a particular concern about benchmarking as it currently operates. Not only did they have to cope with high levels of mobility and other aspects of family disruption associated with service life but their low level of free school meals meant that their performance was compared with schools that they perceived as being more stable and affluent than their own.
Analysis by Dr. Dobson of the responses from head teachers revealed that comparative performances of mobile and non-mobile pupils at different key stages

showed that, in virtually all cases, the average performance of mobile pupils—the description given to children of service personnel—was below that of the non-mobile, often substantially so. Dr. Dobson went on to say:
Data from individual schools showed clearly how good performance by children who had been taught in the same school from the beginning could be hidden in aggregate school achievement figures which included many recent arrivals.
The Minister will be aware that, with few exceptions, pupils who move from school to school do less well than their more settled classmates. During their years of education, children of service personnel generally attend several schools. That factor needs to be recognised and acted upon by the Government, with additional national resources being made available to help the children of those who defend our country's interests at home and abroad.
I repeat my earlier question: what are the Government doing to help to improve the education of the children of our service personnel? It is almost a year since a previous Minister with responsibility for schools told the House that insufficient priority had been given to the effects on schools of high pupil mobility and that Dr. Dobson's research project would provide the basis of any policy changes needed to take account of pupil turnover. What has happened to implement the spirit of what was promised? Issuing policy guidelines is insufficient. Schools that educate the children of our service personnel need additional help now.
The children of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and women deserve the best. At the moment, they are not being treated fairly. The nature of military life means that provision of education for children of service personnel will always have challenges and problems that are markedly different from those faced by children from settled backgrounds. The Government have a duty to do what they can to make life fairer and better for children from service families. Words are not enough: action is needed, and without delay.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I thank the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) for his kind words on my first appearance at the Dispatch Box. I also congratulate him on obtaining this important debate, and assure him that my Department is working closely with the Ministry of Defence on the issue.
The sons and daughters of service personnel are educated in three different settings: overseas, in UK independent schools and in UK state schools. I shall start with the first of those settings because it is important in the context of the education of service children.
Many children of service personnel are educated abroad at schools run by Service Children's Education, or the SCE, an executive agency of the Ministry of Defence. It is run largely along the lines of an English local education authority and operates in accordance with sound UK practice, including the delivery of the same national curriculum that applies in England and Wales. Its schools are supported by child guidance and careers guidance services. There are some 50 SCE schools in areas of the world where the British forces have significant numbers of personnel, such as Germany, Cyprus, Belize and the Falkland Islands.
It is a measure of the success of SCE schools that their examination and assessment results would place them among the leading education authorities in the UK. Reports by the Office for Standards in Education, which provides an independent inspection service for the schools, have been consistently good over a number of years. The work of the schools is backed by SCE's own inspection advisory service, which provides extensive and varied training facilities to ensure that staff in schools are conversant with developments in the United Kingdom. It is worth noting that the SCE is also matching the Government's ambitious plans for the expansion of nursery education in the UK.
There will be occasions when service personnel are posted to locations where there are no SCE schools. In those situations, children can attend the UK boarding schools—either maintained or independent—that are on the Ministry of Defence's admissible schools list.
I understand that the hon. Member for Colchester is largely concerned with those children of service personnel based in the UK who are usually educated near where their mothers or fathers are based. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, because of the nature of their parents' jobs these children may often have to change schools, sometimes at short notice. Our aim, and that of the Ministry of Defence, is to ensure that those children suffer as little disruption to their education as possible.
I deal now with the particular concerns that the hon. Gentleman expressed. I am very much aware of the effects that the movement of Army personnel into and out of his constituency will have on service children and on state schools. Clearly, that problem also affects other hon. Members' constituents.
There are about 185,000 service children in UK state schools. The movement of armed forces families can therefore have an impact on certain parts of the school system. The Government, together with those local education authorities with high concentrations of service children, have taken steps to minimise that impact.
I take this opportunity to welcome the establishment of the National Association of State Schools for Service Children. Although Ministers will not attend the association's conference, officials from my Department will be there and will listen carefully to the concerns expressed and recommendations made. In addition, I can assure the House that Ministers are adopting a joined-up approach to the range of issues affecting service families, including education. We are doing so through the joint ministerial services families task force, of which I am a member. I have already attended a meeting of that task force, and understand that one of its early concerns in connection with education had to do with admissions. The Government recognise the particular needs of service children in that regard, and we have made significant progress.
In March, my Department published its code of practice on school admissions. The paragraph entitled "Children of UK Service Personnel and other Crown Servants" states:
These families are subject to frequent movement within the UK and from abroad, often at relatively short notice. LEAs and School Admission Authorities in those areas with a significant standing presence of Service Personnel should ensure that the needs of Service children are taken into account, by considering inviting the Service Children's Education authority to the Admissions Forum.

Similarly, the section headed "Admission Appeals" states:
Any parent (except, temporarily, the parent of a child who has been permanently excluded from two schools and where at least one of the exclusions took place since 1 September 1997) who is refused a school place for which they have applied, has the right to appeal to an independent appeal panel. This right applies equally to parents returning from working abroad or subject to frequent movements within the UK, such as Service personnel and other Crown Servants.
The chief executive of the SCE wrote to the 12 local education authorities with the largest concentrations of service personnel in August this year to determine their progress in setting up admissions forums and in including the SCE's representatives as members.

Mr. Russell: The Department has recognised that 12 local education authorities have a particular interest in the education of children of service personnel. Does that mean that it will provide additional national resources for those 12 LEAs, as they have problems over and above those of other authorities?

Jacqui Smith: I was about to say that the chief executive has written in similar terms to a further eight LEAs, so it is not right to say that we can easily identify the LEAs. My Department's priority has been to encourage partnership between the SCE and the LEAs concerned. I shall touch on local funding later in my speech.
It may be helpful if I outline the background to current troop movements. Army personnel move in one of two ways—within formed units or as individuals. More than two thirds of moves are by individuals. Moves can take place at any time of year and must, of course, be subject to operational needs which, for a fighting force, must take priority. Having said that, the Army has in recent years attempted to concentrate such movements in school holidays, specifically the summer holidays. Service families want their children to complete whole years of schooling, and the Army is doing its best to meet that aspiration as far as is possible.
Certain units in the Army—the front-line units—move as formed units because that is how they fight. Those units, and their families, are based in a range of locations in the United Kingdom and abroad. Some of those locations are arduous, and units can be posted to them for only limited periods. The Army calls the process of rotating front-line units through locations the arms plot. Two factors drive the arms plot: the maximum amount of time that units can remain in an arduous environment, and the times of the year when they can be replaced. Most arms plot moves, like individual moves, take place in the summer holidays, again because the Army wants to reduce the impact of these moves on service children.
Two parachute battalions are being relocated from their long-established base at Aldershot to Colchester—the hon. Gentleman's constituency—as part of the strategic defence review. The Parachute Regiment will leave its home in Aldershot, where it has been since the second world war. Once in Colchester, it will form part of 16 Air Assault Brigade. However, space must be created to allow it to move to Colchester, which is why the Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment will move out in April 2000, followed shortly next summer by the First Battalion, the Royal Scots.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman can appreciate that important operational reasons have dictated the timing of moves out of his constituency, which is why they are


taking place during the period of children's standard assessment tests. I assure him that we recognise the concern that that has caused, and that such moves are exceptional. Furthermore, where a parent is moved at that time, his or her spouse and children can remain in the accommodation for up to three months to enable SATs to be completed. For exams such as GCSE and A-levels, the period can be even longer. That displays the importance that the Ministry of Defence places on service children's education.
My Department and LEAs recognise the turbulence that such changes can create, which is why LEAs—I am pleased to say that Essex is included—provide extra resources for the schools affected. That may partly explain why, according to research about to be published by Janet Dobson on the effects of pupil mobility, which is partly funded by my Department, the levels of achievement of children in schools with large numbers of service children seem to compare favourably with children in other schools where there is unusually high mobility.
The research looked at only a sample of service children's schools, but it found that a high proportion of such children do better than other children with high mobility. That is testimony to the hard work of schools, and the involvement of service parents, in overcoming the difficulties of high mobility in order to help to achieve our aim of raising standards in all schools. I assure the hon. Member for Colchester that we intend to use the results of the research on mobility to help to guide future policies.
In relation to target setting, I want to mention briefly our proposals for raising school performance. The Government strongly believe that setting specific, measurable targets at least once a year for pupil performance is a powerful lever for raising standards in our schools. That view was supported in the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority consultation on target setting. Target setting should support school improvement and should not become a burdensome administrative procedure. Targets have to be set each autumn term. They must relate to those pupils who will take the national curriculum tests, GCSE examinations or equivalent towards the end of the following school year—

that is, five terms later. Schools may want to augment those targets with others of their own choosing, to reflect their particular priorities. That may be especially important for state schools with high numbers of service children.
In addition, schools should discuss indicative targets for future years as part of their dialogue with LEAs within the education development plan process. We expect LEAs to take account of circumstances such as the mobility of children of service personnel when setting those targets. The introduction of performance targets in schools is sufficiently flexible to take account of individual circumstances.
To return to the hon. Gentleman's concerns about benchmarking, the effect of pupil mobility is also considered by Ofsted. In January 2000, we shall for the first time be collecting detailed information on pupils that will enable us to track the progress and the schools of individual pupils. We expect that that information about pupil mobility will thereafter be available to inspectors and will be included in the PANDA, or performance and assessment information, and PICSI, the pre-inspection context and school indicator, reports that are issued to schools by Ofsted.
I assure the hon. Gentleman that Ofsted's revised framework for inspection, to be published later this year, will require inspectors to collect data on pupil mobility when considering their inspections, and to comment on that where appropriate.
In conclusion, schools, LEAs and Ofsted can all take into account the needs and difficulties that may face service children in state schools. We accept the commitment mentioned by the hon. Gentleman on the importance of ensuring that, as with all our children, education for the children of those people in our services is of as high a quality as possible. I am sure that he shares our commitment to the standards agenda—to raise standards for all children, including those from service families.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Nine o'clock.